Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED BAUXITE MINE, ESK MAIN ROAD, EAST OF CONARA (“FINGAL RAIL”), TASMANIA

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Australian Bauxite Limited 19 May 2014

Mark Wapstra ABN 83 464 107 291 28 Suncrest Avenue email: [email protected] business ph.:(03) 62 283 220 Lenah Valley, TAS 7008 web: www.ecotas.com.au mobile ph.: 0407 008 685

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CITATION This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2014). Ecological Assessment of Proposed Bauxite Mine, Esk Main Road, East of Conara (“Fingal Rail”), Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Australian Bauxite Limited, 19 May 2014.

AUTHORSHIP Field assessment: Mark Wapstra (assistance from Tamara Coyte, ABx) Report production: Mark Wapstra Habitat and vegetation mapping: Mark Wapstra Base data for mapping: TheList, TasMap, ABx, pitt&sherry GIS mapping: Mark Wapstra Digital and aerial photography: Mark Wapstra, GoogleEarth, TheList, BirdsEye (Garmin)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tamara Coyte (ABx) provided background information and on-site guidance/field assistance; Nicky Pollington (pitt&sherry) provided background information. Staff of the Tasmanian Herbarium provided information on the collections of Leucopogon virgatus.

COVER ILLUSTRATION View of old army camp site, where three threatened plants are present. Insets (top: L-R): Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort), Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort), Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily), Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily); bottom: L-R): Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant), Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort), Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil), Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles).

Please note: the blank pages in this document are deliberate to facilitate double-sided printing.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine i ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine ii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CONTENTS SUMMARY ...... 1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY ...... 4 Purpose ...... 4 Scope ...... 4 Limitations ...... 4 Qualifications ...... 5 Permit ...... 5 THE STUDY AREA ...... 5 THE PROPOSAL ...... 6 METHODS ...... 6 Nomenclature ...... 6 Preliminary investigation ...... 7 Previous assessments for threatened flora ...... 7 Present survey...... 9 Botanical assessment ...... 9 Zoological assessment ...... 10 RESULTS ...... 10 Vegetation types ...... 10 Comments on TASVEG mapping ...... 10 Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study ...... 11 Plant species ...... 12 General observations ...... 12 Priority species recorded from the study area – previous records ...... 13 Priority flora species recorded from the study area – records from present assessment 20 Potential impacts of the proposal on threatened flora ...... 26 Recommended mitigation and monitoring strategy for threatened flora ...... 30 Comments on priority flora recorded from databases ...... 31 Fauna species ...... 42 General observations ...... 42 Priority fauna species recorded from the study area – records from present assessment ...... 43 Comments on priority fauna recorded from databases ...... 45 Other ecological values ...... 51 Matters of National Environmental Significance –Threatened Ecological Communities .. 51 Weed species ...... 51

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine iii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 52 Myrtle wilt and rust ...... 54 Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens ...... 54 DISCUSSION ...... 54 Summary of key findings...... 54 Legislative and policy implications ...... 57 REFERENCES ...... 63 APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition ...... 66 APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area ...... 68 APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area ...... 73 APPENDIX D. Images of threatened flora and threatened flora habitat ...... 77 APPENDIX E. Images of threatened fauna and threatened fauna habitat ...... 83 APPENDIX F. Images of declared weeds ...... 84 APPENDIX G. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area ...... 85 APPENDIX H. DSEWPaC’s Protected Matters report for study area ...... 85 APPENDIX I. Forest Practices Authority’s Fauna Values Database report for study area ...... 85

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine iv ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

SUMMARY

General

Australian Bauxite Limited (ABx) engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an ecological assessment of private property east of Conara and north of the Esk Main Road, Tasmania, Tasmania, proposed for development as a bauxite mine, primarily to facilitate further land use planning through various Commonwealth, State and local government planning procedures. The study area was assessed on 15 November 2013 and 19 March 2014 by Mark Wapstra.

Summary of key findings

Non-priority flora (e.g. species of biogeographic significance)  One species of potentially high conservation significance was detected: Pheladenia deformis (blue fairies) was identified from one site, which is probably outside areas to be disturbed, such that special management is not considered warranted. Non-priority fauna (e.g. species of biogeographic significance)  No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. Threatened flora  No plant species, listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were detected within the study area – no special management actions are required.  Thirteen plant species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were detected within the study area, as follows:  Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily): widespread and locally common, effectively throughout area and habitats [rare];  Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius (shortleaf beardheath): basically restricted to sandy rises but locally common to dominant in some areas to scattered in others [rare];  Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort): locally frequent and widespread on many old tracks and slightly poorly-drained areas away from sandy areas [rare];  Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort): as above (co-occur in many locations) [rare];  Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort): one site only, associated with “dam” margin in southern area [rare];  Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil): as above [vulnerable];  Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant): as above (but two sites at two different “dams”) [rare];  Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia (prickly woodruff): dense patch near main gate, another north of Stackhousia subterranea site [rare];  Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles): one patch of c. 150-200 in 5 x 4 m area [endangered];

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 1 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass): abundant along fenceline between main patch of forest and remnant to west; scattered along track south of old army camp; elsewhere occasional [rare];  Hypoxis vaginata (sheathing yellowstar): as per Milner (2010) and North Barker observations (i.e. widespread and locally common); one found fruiting near dam as part of present surveys [rare];  Cynoglossum australe (coast houndstongue): localised patches along forest-pasture fenceline on eastern boundary of title [rare]; and  Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily): widespread in southern part of study area, with localised patches, especially associated with sedgy understorey and edges of tracks [vulnerable].  A permit to disturb these species will be required, which will include the development of detailed management prescriptions including protection of some sites, topsoil management at other sites, and long-term monitoring. Threatened fauna  Evidence of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the green and golden frog (Litoria raniformis) was detected from the study area. Both species are listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, as endangered and vulnerable, respectively.  Further surveys for both species may be warranted, although this need not constrain further planning as such surveys can be undertaken as part of the development of the DPEMP and as part of conditions (e.g. pre-clearance surveys for devil dens, habitat and nocturnal call- back surveys at selected sites for the green and golden frog). It is unlikely that the presence of these species will fatally flaw the proposal.  There is potential habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll, eastern barred bandicoot, and masked owl. Field survey did not indicate actual presence of these species, and further survey is unlikely to be required. Vegetation types  The study area supports one native TASVEG mapping unit:  “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments” (TASVEG code: DAZ).  The study area supports two exotic TASVEG mapping units:  “agricultural land” (TASVEG code: FAG); and  “permanent easements” (TASVEG code: FPE).  None of these vegetation mapping units are classified as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  DAZ is classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. This is likely to constrain the future land use post-extraction, with a requirement to ensure successful regeneration of the same vegetation type on disturbed sites. Weeds  Two species, classified as a “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, was detected from within the study area. Ulex europaeus (gorse) is restricted to a few small patches, and Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle) is only present in pasture areas.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 2 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project. Pre-treatment of key sites adjacent to areas likely to be disturbed is also suggested. For example, removal (cut and paste and off-site disposal) of gorse, with periodic (e.g. 6 month) follow-up spraying and/or pulling of new seedlings, is suggested for at least the patch immediately east of the main gravel road. Ensuring machinery and vehicles that have operated in sites infested with slender thistle (i.e. paddock areas) do not enter un-infested forested areas without being subject to hygiene procedures is also recommended. Periodic monitoring of disturbed sites (e.g. rehabilitated areas) should form part of the broader post-disturbance activities. Plant disease  No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected.  Minimising the risk of pathogens being introduced to the site, despite the unlikely persistence of the species due to environmental conditions, is considered prudent through application of the vehicle and machinery hygiene protocols suggested for minimising the risk of introducing environmental weeds to the site. Animal disease  The study area is likely to be free of the frog chytrid pathogen, as the lowland parts of the Midlands are an apparent “hole” for the pathogen. Protecting the known site of Litoria raniformis from disturbance (especially changes to drainage patterns and water-holding capacity), and minimising disturbance to potential habitat, is recommended through careful placement of access tracks, management of extraction and rehabilitation activities and application of vehicle/machinery hygiene protocols.  Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 3 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY

Purpose

Australian Bauxite Limited (ABx) engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an ecological assessment of private property east of Conara and north of the Esk Main Road, Tasmania, Tasmania, proposed for development as a bauxite mine, primarily to facilitate further land use planning through various Commonwealth, State and local government planning procedures.

Scope

This report relates only to:  flora and fauna species of conservation significance (i.e. those listed as threatened under either the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1999); and  vegetation types (forest and non-forest, native and exotic) present, including a discussion of the distribution, condition, extent, composition and conservation significance of each community;  plant and animal disease management issues;  weed management issues; and  a discussion of the policy and legislative implications of such additional ecological values. This report follows, in a general sense, the government-produced Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments (DPIPWE 2009) in anticipation that the report (or extracts of it) may be used as part of various approval processes that may be required for the development proposal on the site. The assessment also complies, in a general sense, with the Tasmanian EPA’s Environmental Effects Report requirements. The report format will also be applicable to other assessment protocols as required the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities (for any referral/approval that may be required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). The combination of this level of assessment and reporting means that it should also meet the approval protocol requirements under the Northern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and those of Mineral Resources Tasmania.

Limitations

The ecological assessments were undertaken on 15 November 2013 and 19 March 2014. Many plant species have ephemeral or seasonal growth or flowering habits, or patchy distributions (at varying scales), and it is possible that some species were not recorded for this reason. However, every effort was made to sample the range of habitats present in the survey area to maximise the opportunity of recording the majority of species present (particular those of conservation significance). Late spring and into summer is usually regarded as the most suitable period to undertake the majority of botanical assessments (although this season was particularly good for

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 4 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting spring-flowering species, including many threatened species such as orchids, with an “early” season due to good winter rains and warming conditions). While some species have more restricted flowering periods, a discussion of the potential for the site to support these is presented. It is noted that the initial survey (15 November 2013) was deliberately timed to coincide with the peak flowering of many threatened plants in nearby areas. The follow-up survey (19 March 2014) aimed to capture the “other end” of the flowering season to maximise the opportunity for detection of flora species with a priority for conservation management. Note that additional surveys of the area have also been conducted by two additional ecological consultants at different times in different years. The survey was also limited to vascular species: species of mosses, lichens and liverworts were not recorded. However, a consideration is made of species (vascular and non-vascular) likely to be present (based on habitat information and database records) and reasons presented for their apparent absence. Surveys for threatened fauna were practically limited to an examination of “potential habitat” (i.e. comparison of on-site habitat features to habitat descriptions for threatened fauna), and detection of tracks, scats and other signs.

Qualifications

Except where otherwise stated, the opinions and interpretations of legislation and policy expressed in this report are made by the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the relevant agency. The client should confirm management prescriptions with the relevant agency before acting on the content of this report.

Permit

Any plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL 13066 (in the name of Mark Wapstra). Relevant data has been entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the author. Some plant material has been lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the author.

THE STUDY AREA

The study area comprises private property north of the Esk Main Road, east of Conara, in the northern Midlands of Tasmania (Figure 1), centred on approximately 541700mE 5370950mN (Hanleth 5437 & Diamond 5436 TASMAPs) The subject area is accessed direct off the Esk Main Road through the “Packston Reserve”. The study area was defined by ABx (Figure 1), based approximately on the extent of the bauxite ore body. The specific extent of proposed ore extraction and supporting infrastructure and other project elements are not defined at this stage of planning. As such, the ground survey was somewhat “nebulous”, designed to target as much of the habitat variation present as possible, with an emphasis on the most likely areas to be developed (e.g. obvious ore outcropping areas cf. deeper sandy areas but based approximately on the extent of exploratory drilling to date. Elevation of the study area varies around c. 220-240 m a.s.l. with low undulating terrain of broad sandy rises between gentle drainage depressions (no defined water courses or other permanent water bodies present), and broad flat rockier ground.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 5 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Forested vegetation is uniformly “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits” (Milner 2010; pers. obs.). Other ecological and physical features of the study area are discussed in Milner (2010) and are further elucidated below (where such features affect the expression of ecological values such as vegetation type and occurrence of threatened flora and fauna) and in reports produced by Australian Bauxite Limited. Geology of the study area is mapped as:  Tertiary-Quaternary (Cainozoic)-age “undifferentiated Cainozoic sediments” (geocode: TQ): northern section, western area and southeastern portion, expressed mainly as sandier substrates with little rock exposure; and  Quaternary (Cainozoic)-age “undifferentiated Quaternary sediments” (geocode: Q): bands through southern and northern part of study area, expressed mainly as lateritic soils with no significant rock exposures. The vegetation is typical for these substrates, dominated by peppermint and gum species of Eucalyptus with a grassy-sedgy-heathy-shrubby understorey depending on topography (minor variation only with gentle swales supporting deeper soils with marginally poorer drainage and therefore dominated locally by sedges) and expression of soil type (with sandier rises on the TQ substrate often supporting Eucalyptus pauciflora and Eucalyptus viminalis with a grassy-bracken understorey; and gentle lateritic slopes on Q supporting Eucalyptus amygdalina with a heathier understorey). This minor variation in geology and soils is obvious on the ground through subtle changes in topography but stronger shifts in vegetation structure and composition. The supporting vegetation is regarded as being strongly associated with threatened flora, especially lateritic soils, which allows a focussed survey to be undertaken using meandering transects targeting the topographic, drainage and substrate variations. Land tenure and other categorisations of the study area are as follows:  private property;  Northern Midlands municipality, subject to the Northern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2013 (effective from 1 June 2013), with the subject area zoned as Rural Resources (Maps 20 & 26 of zoning maps) and the forested areas subject to the Priority Habitat overlay (Maps 20 & 26 of overlay maps);  Northern Midlands Bioregion (according to the 5/6.1 boundaries used by most government agencies); and  Natural Resource Management (NRM) North region.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposed land use is bauxite extraction using surface mining techniques, followed by progressive rehabilitation. Further details will be provided in the DPEMP.

METHODS

Nomenclature

All grid references in this report are in GDA94, except where otherwise stated.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 6 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Vascular species nomenclature follows Baker & de Salas (2013) for scientific names and Wapstra et al. (2005+) for common names. Vegetation classification follows TASVEG, as described by Harris & Kitchener (2005) and updated in Kitchener & Harris (2013).

Preliminary investigation

Available sources of threatened flora and fauna records, vegetation mapping and other potential environmental values were interrogated. These sources include:  Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas Report No. 59355 ECOtas_ABx_Conara for the approximate development area, buffered by 5 km, dated 14 November 2013 (DPIPWE 2013) – Appendix G;  Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities’ Protected Matters Search Tool Report for approximate centre of the proposed development area (-41.81338 147.50078), buffered by 10 km, dated 14 November 2013 (DSEWPaC 2013) – Appendix H;  Forest Practices Authority’s Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 541787mE 5370479mN buffered by 2 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 18 March 2014 (FPA 2014) – Appendix I;  previous assessments of parts of the proposed development area (Milner 2010; North Barker Ecosystem Services unpubl. data; ECOtas 2013 – results of these surveys have been incorporated into the present report);  the TASVEG 3.0 vegetation coverage (as available through a GIS coverage);  other sources listed in tables and text as indicated.

Previous assessments for threatened flora

DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database (DPIPWE 2013) indicates that the study area may have been subject to previous surveys because there are scattered records of threatened flora within or close to the study area. However, closer examination of the records indicate that many are unreliable in the sense that they have a low precision (± 1000 m or more) and/or are linked to database project codes with known poor veracity. Having said that, it is possible that some of the records are genuine and this is discussed under the individual species in the RESULTS section. The Natural Values Atlas also indicates the presence of more reliable records within close proximity to the study area (e.g. as at the “Packham Reserve” between the main gate to the title and the Esk Main Road). These are also discussed under the individual species in the RESULTS section Australian Bauxite Limited have also previously engaged two environmental consultant companies to undertake targeted surveys of ecological values within the proposed development area. Milner (2010) reported on targeted surveys of specific exploration drill hole sites, which were undertaken on 1 & 7 October 2010. Theoretically, this timing was appropriate to target many threatened flora species, although may have been marginally too early in that particular year to detect some ephemerally flowering annual herbs. The flowering of such species is strongly affected by the preceding winter and early spring rains and preceding seasons of dryness especially, and current conditions, with some species “appearing” suddenly at sites and disappearing equally quickly.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 7 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 1. General location of the study area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 8 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Milner (2010) only reported the annually flowering herb Hypoxis vaginata var. vaginata (sheathing yellowstar), as follows: “One plant species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and/or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was observed or recorded during the field survey. • Hypoxis vaginata var vaginata the Sheathing Yellow-star was observed in the vicinity of Drill Site 145 GRID REF: 542336E – 5369338N and Drill Site 213 GRID REF: 541792E – 5370428N Both were locations that remained damp in winter. The species is provisionally listed as being rare under the Tasmanian Act. The location of each of those two drill sites should be relocated a short distance to avoid the small (about 2 cm across) bright yellow star- like flowers on short stems up to 5 cm in height. See following photos. The species was observed in other locations within the survey area but away from proposed drill sites”. Note that these records (both the drill sites records and the additional sites mentioned) do not appear in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database (DPIWPE 2013). North Barker Ecosystem Services were subsequently engaged to undertake a targeted survey for threatened flora. The specific timing of the survey has not been reported (pre-November 2013) but the following details on threatened flora have been provided: “Hypoxis vaginata (a rare species) was found to be scattered across the forest block. This species does not represent a major constraint. However, the forest type elsewhere in the vicinity is known to support other threatened flora. This particular patch is in excellent condition and so is likely to support other threatened species that are able to be identified in spring”. Again, these records do not appear in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database (DPIWPE 2013). Subsequent to these two surveys, Australian Bauxite Limited engaged ECOtas to undertake targeted threatened flora surveys designed to maximise the detection of ephemerally flowering threatened flora species, which was conducted on 15 November 2013 and reported in ECOtas (2013).

Present survey

Botanical assessment

The study area was assessed on 15 November 2013 by Mark Wapstra (ECOtas). The survey aimed to assess the range of habitat types present in the study area (at the broad scale e.g. vegetation type, altitude variation, and at the finer scale e.g. microhabitats such as open areas, tracks, poorly- drained patches, disturbed sites, etc.). In this case, the study area comprises open grassy-shrubby forest and woodland with numerous old open tracks throughout, well-defined by fencelines adjacent to pasture, allowing relatively easy access and traverse. An additional survey was conducted on 19 March 2014 by Mark Wapstra (ECOtas). That survey attempted to “fill the gaps” of previous surveys and deliberately targeted a revised potential ore body GIS layer provided by Australian Bauxite Limited. It also attempted to confirm the status of some previously detected populations of threatened flora (e.g. cluster of ephemeral annuals near the shallow “dam”) and extend the survey for Litoria raniformis (green and golden frog), also at the shallow “dam” – unfortunately the sites of these species were dry after a long period of warm weather and no additional detailed surveys were practical.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 9 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Reference to topographic maps (Hanleth 5437 & Diamond 5436 TASMAPs 1:25000 scale), aerial photography (GoogleEarth, TheList, Birdseye) and vegetation maps (TASVEG as per the cited Natural Values Atlas report) established the approximate range and distribution of topographic and habitat variation present in the study area. Where threatened flora populations were encountered, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to delineate the point location and/or extent of the population and estimates made of abundance of individuals, where practical. The term “where practical” is used in relation to species such as Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass) and Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia (prickly woodruff) that were either locally extremely abundant or difficult to count due to growing through dense grass, respectively. Additionally, species such as Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort) and Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort) were usually locally abundant (in the order of 1000s) and represented by multiple ages (i.e. dense clumps of several individuals to minute seedlings of one or both species, which co-occurred) making counting impractical. Where declared weeds, within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, were detected, hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to delineate the point location and/or extent of the population and estimates made of abundance of individuals, where practical.

Zoological assessment

Potential habitat for threatened fauna (as listed on databases referred to above) was assessed by reference to the vegetation types and site characteristics present. The presence of mammals, birds, frogs and reptiles was determined by opportunistic discovery (e.g. sightings and calls) during the main botanical assessment, and evidence such as tracks, scats and other signs. Where such evidence was detected (e.g. devil scats), hand-held GPS (Garmin Oregon 650) was used to delineate the point location. Logs and wombat burrows were examined as potential den sites for Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) and Dasyurus maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll). Trees with large hollows (which are very few and far between) were examined for potential use by Tyto novaehollandiae (masked owl) by checking the base of the tree for evidence of use such as carrion, feathers, pellets and whitewash.

RESULTS

Vegetation types

Comments on TASVEG mapping

This section, which comments on the existing TASVEG mapping for the study area, is included to highlight the differences between existing mapping and the more recent mapping from the present study to ensure that any parties assessing land use proposals (via this report) do not rely on existing mapping. Note that TASVEG mapping, which was mainly a desktop mapping exercise based on aerial photography, is often substantially different to ground-truthed vegetation mapping, especially at a local scale. TASVEG (Figure 2) maps the study area and surrounds as:  “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits” (TASVEG code: DAZ): extensive across forested areas;

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 10 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 “Bursaria-Acacia woodland and scrub” (TASVEG code: NBA): small remnant patch west of main part of study area; and  “agricultural land” (TASVEG code: FAG): surrounding paddock areas. Milner (2010) indicated that a small pocket of the study area supported “highland Poa grassland” (TASVEG code: GPH) according to then utilised TASVEG 2.0 mapping, which is mentioned because it is classified as threatened vegetation type under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. Milner (2010) confirmed the absence of this vegetation mapping unit from the study area, concluding that the area only supported DAZ.

Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study

Vegetation types have been classified according to Harris & Kitchener (2005) From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (TASVEG 2.0) and Kitchener & Harris (2013) for TASVEG 3.0. Conservation priorities alluded to in Table 1 and discussed in the text below are taken from Schedule 3A of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (DPIPWE 2014). Table 1 provides information on the vegetation types identified with notes provided on condition. Figure 3 indicates the revised mapping of the vegetation within the study area. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of the native vegetation unit reported from the study area (also includes annotated images).

Table 1. Vegetation mapping units present in study area [conservation priorities: TASVEG – as per Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002, using units described by Kitchener & Harris (2013), relating to TASVEG 3.0 mapping units only; EPBCA – as per the listing of ecological communities on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, relating to communities as described under that Act, but with equivalencies to TASVEG units]

TASVEG Conservation Equivalent priority Comments (Kitchener & TASVEG Harris 2013) EPBCA DAZ occupies all forested parts of the study area, including parts mapped under TASVEG 3.0 as NBA. The structure and composition of the forest varies considerably across the subject area, reflecting differences in underlying geology, derived soils, topography, aspect and drainage. On sandier rises, Eucalyptus pauciflora and Eucalyptus viminalis are the dominant canopy species, with Eucalyptus amygdalina sparse to co-dominant. The understorey of such sites is usually dominated by grasses and/or bracken (Pteridium esculentum) but is also occasionally heathy. Sites with impeded drainage tend to support a sedgy understorey, although localised patches of sedgy Eucalyptus understorey occur throughout the subject area. Sites on lateritic soils tend to amygdalina be dominated by Eucalyptus amygdalina with a heathy understorey (heavily inland forest threatened grazed areas tend to be very open and grassy, now lacking a high species and woodland diversity). on Cainozoic not threatened sediments On slightly more sheltered slopes (e.g. along eastern boundary), the understorey varies from grassy to shrubby. Some parts of the forest cover tend (DAZ) to a woodland structure with a lower density of overtopping eucalypts and a higher density of Acacia dealbata (and occasionally Acacia mearnsii) but such sites often have a relatively high density of eucalypt seedlings and saplings in the understorey such that classification as DAZ remains appropriate. Localised areas have been intensively disturbed by gravel extraction, and one area from use as an army camp, but these areas support a sparse to dense eucalypt canopy and many understorey species (highly diverse in some sites, including many species of threatened flora) – such sites could be marginally classified as “extra-urban miscellaneous” (TASVEG code: FUM) but the

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 11 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

TASVEG Conservation Equivalent priority Comments (Kitchener & TASVEG Harris 2013) EPBCA vegetation structure and species composition is indicative of a now recovered native vegetation cover. Previous mapping (TASVEG 2.0, TASVEG 3.0, Milner 2010) did not separate the railway line from surrounding forest cover, mapping this linear feature as DAZ. However, while there is some canopy overhang, in reality the railway line is properly mapped as “permanent easement” (TASVEG code: FPE) – see below. Minor roads, tracks and anthropogenically disturbed sites (such as an old concrete foundation slab) have not been separately mapped as FPE or FUM because canopy cover is such that such features are virtually indistinguishable on aerial imagery and often such sites support a high diversity of native plant species.

Areas not supporting forest have been classified as FAG although in reality these cleared areas range from intensively managed cropping/pasture land (FAG in its true sense) to areas utilised as “rough pasture” (essentially cleared forested areas not suited to cultivation and sowing but used for sheep grazing) Agricultural that could be mapped as either “regenerating cleared land” (TASVEG code: not threatened land FRG) or “lowland grassland complex” (TASVEG code: GCL), or some mosaic of not threatened FAG, FRG and GCL. Limited areas are reverting to a wattle-dominated scrubland (FAG) but such sites are either of limited extent to not warrant separate classification, for example as “Bursaria-Acacia woodland and scrub” (TASVEG code: NBA) or outside the study area. It is noted that none of the “alternative” mapping units are classified with a high priority for conservation management at any level such that subsumation into a broader concept of FAG is acceptable.

Permanent not threatened easement FPE is used to map the obvious linear feature of the railway line that dissects not threatened the southern part of the subject area north of the Esk Main Road. (FPE)

Of the vegetation mapping units present within the study area, none are classified as threatened on schedules of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments” (DAZ) is classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. In addition, the forested parts of the study area are classified with the “Priority Habitat” overlay under the Northern Midlands Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The management implications of these classifications are provided in DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications.

Plant species

General observations

A total of 214 vascular plant species (Appendix B, Table 2) were recorded from the study area, comprising 125 dicotyledons (including 3 endemic and 20 exotic species), 88 monocotyledons (including 2 endemic and 11 exotic species) and 1 pteridophyte (native). Additional surveys at different times of the year may detect additional short-lived herbs and grasses, although such surveys are not considered warranted given the current level of recent botanical assessments. It is noted that Milner (2010) recorded a single site for Pheladenia deformis (blue fairies), noting the potential biogeographic significance of this finding. Jones et al. (1999) note that this annually flowering orchid is “uncommon but widespread in coastal and near-coastal areas below 200 m, mostly in the eastern half of the State and on Flinders Island”. Records of the species held in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database and in collections at the Tasmanian Herbarium indicate one other inland site. In 2000, i.e. post mapping provided in Jones et al. (1999), the species was

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 12 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting recorded at the Tom Gibson Nature Reserve, a few kilometres northwest of the study area, which somewhat lessens the significance of the study area for the species because it suggests it may be more widespread in inland sites. While Pheladenia deformis is not listed as threatened at either the Commonwealth or State level, maintaining locally significant inland populations is considered warranted. At present, the site at 541797mE 5370398mN is marginally outside the mapped ore bodies (Figure 8) such that special management is not considered warranted. Undertaking a post- disturbance survey in mid to late September during the species’ peak flowering period (Wapstra et al. 2012), as part of other post-disturbance monitoring, is suggested.

Table 2. Summary of vascular species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS DICOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTYLEDONAE GYMNOSPERMAE PTERIDOPHYTA 102 75 - 1 e 3 2 - - i 20 11 - - Sum 125 88 0 1 TOTAL 214

Priority species recorded from the study area – previous records

Figures 4 & 5 and Table 3 indicate the distribution of records of threatened flora (DPIPWE 2013) from within and close to the study area. As can be seen from the discussion of the individual records, caution must be exercised in presuming that any of these more historical records are from the study area itself. The majority are most likely from the “Packston Reserve” adjacent to the Esk Main Road, long-recognised as a threatened flora “hotspot” and frequent stop-off for botanists and photographers, especially those interested in orchids. It is less likely that the records are from the main forested part of the title, although it is possible that old tracks across private property or the railway easement were followed. Figure 5 and Table 3 also indicate the records of Milner (2010), based on the limited information provided in that report.

Table 3. Details of previous threatened flora recorded from study area

[site as per Figure 3; location as per citation in DPIPWE (2013); not including ECOtas (2013), results of which are combined into the present report]

Site Easting Northing Location Comments

Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: v]

This record (R.J. Fensham, 10 Jan. 1985) falls within “near first railway the main forested part of the study area but the crossing E of Conara 1 541528 5370458 precision (± 1000 m) and cited location clearly indicate on Fingal Road [Esk the site is the “Packston Reserve” on the verge of the main road]” Esk Main Road.

No location is provided for this record 2 541912 5369983 [without location] (J. Kirkpatrick, 1 Nov. 1984) but it has a precision of ± 100 m, which is dubious because the project code attached to the record is “decoda:gland”, which

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 13 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Site Easting Northing Location Comments

represents the now notorious decoda database set of grassland records collected during the 1980s by Jamie Kirkpatrick that were corrupted – reliance on the apparently precise point location data must be undertaken with extreme caution. In this case, it is much more likely that the record is from the verge of the Esk Main Road rather than less accessible private property inland of the road behind a locked gate.

Caesia calliantha (blue grasslily) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

2 541912 5369983 [without location] As above.

Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

2 541912 5369983 [without location] As above.

Caladenia filamentosa (daddy longlegs) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

No location is provided in DPIPWE (2013) for this record (J. Campbell, 14 Nov. 1986) and the precision is given as ± 100 m, although this is certainly erroneous. The project code is given as “oa:oaherb”, which refers to the DPIPWE-based “orchid atlas” project during which historical records were collated (in this case “oaherb” refers to records created from collection details from the Tasmanian Herbarium 2 541912 5369983 [without location] and/or the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery). No records are cited from either of these institutions in Jones (1998) or included in database information available to the author from the Tasmanian Herbarium. In the absence of further information, it is most likely that the record is from the “Packston Reserve” on the verge of the Esk Main Road, a recognised “orchid- hunting” location for many decades amongst the orchid community in Tasmania.

Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: v]

This record (D.I. Morris, 12 Nov. 1995) falls within the main forested part of the study area but the cited location clearly indicates the site is the “Packston “near bridge over Reserve” on the verge of the Esk Main Road (the railway line, 6 km precision of the record is given as ± 100 m but this is 3 541912 5369583 east of Conara on almost certainly inaccurate in itself because herbarium Avoca road” staff did not GPS locations and created latitude/longitude references from 1:100,000 maps, which were later converted to 13-figure easting/northing references i.e. a false precision).

“Esk Main Road, c. 4.5km east of Conara picnic area, As above (but record details: D.I. Morris, 4 542012 5369583 where road crosses 17 Sep. 1988). railway line. Railway reserve”

Pterostylis squamata (ruddy greenhood) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

No location is provided in DPIPWE (2013) for this 3 541912 5369583 [without location] record (J. Campbell, 4 Jan. 1987) and the precision is given as ± 100 m, although this is certainly erroneous. The project code is given as “oa:oaherb”, which refers

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 14 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Site Easting Northing Location Comments

to the DPIPWE-based “orchid atlas” project during which historical records were collated (in this case “oaherb” refers to records created from collection details from the Tasmanian Herbarium and/or the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery). The QVMAG hold a record attributed to Campbell labelled “railway underpass, 5 km from Avoca”. In the absence of further information, it is most likely that the record is from the “Packston Reserve” on the verge of the Esk Main Road, a recognised “orchid-hunting” location for many decades amongst the orchid community in Tasmania.

As above except records attributed to Mary Cameron on 29 Dec. 1985 and 17 Jan. 1986. Jones (1998) cites at least one of these records (1986) as from “Esk 5 542312 5369783 [without location] Hghy, 5.4 km from Conara”, again almost undoubtedly the “Packston Reserve” although the records falls in the pasture to the north (probably already pasture at the time of the record collection in 1985/86).

Glycine latrobeana (clover glycine) [EPBCA: VU; TSPA: v]

This is a recent record (K.L. Hopkins, 14 Dec. 2009), collected as part of the more extensive surveys for the South Esk Irrigation Scheme project. The site was GPSed with a precision of ± 10 m, which means the record is in the northeast corner of the “Packston 6 542213 5369530 “South Esk Pipeline” Reserve”. This site was surveyed on 15 November 2013 without success, and again on 19 March 2014, also without success, although there has been considerable dumping of rubbish and soil waste in the “reserve”, substantially altering the ecological condition.

Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

This is a recent record (K.L. Hopkins, 14 Dec. 2009), collected as part of the more extensive surveys for the South Esk Irrigation Scheme project. The site was GPSed with a precision of ± 10 m, which means the 7 542138 5369448 “South Esk Pipeline” record is on the verge of the Esk Main Road. No attempt was made to re-locate this site on 15 November 2013 but the species was detected on the edge of the “Packston Reserve” along the edge of the Esk Main Road on 19 March 2014.

8 542082 5369431 “South Esk Pipeline” As above.

Record (D. Ziegeler, 1 Feb. 2006) is one of several in area, which coincides with the margin of a forest remnant and developed pasture; population confirmed as part of present assessment; note: 2006 records are 9 540059 5370701 “Glen Esk” given as subsp. scabra but only subsp. falcata could be detected in 2013 (see discussion under individual species’ accounts in Table 6 on the veracity of records of subsp. scabra in Tasmania)

Hypoxis vaginata var. vaginata (sheathing yellowstar) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

Refer to Milner (2010) – note additional sightings are 10 542336 5369338 “Drill Site 145” noted but no locations provided.

11 541792 5370428 “Drill Site 213” As above.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 15 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 2. Existing TASVEG 3.0 vegetation mapping for the study area and surrounds (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 16 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 3. Revised vegetation mapping for the study area and surrounds (refer to text for codes)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 17 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 4. Records of threatened flora from general vicinity of project area (DPIPWE 2013)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 18 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 5. Records of threatened flora from project area (DPIPWE 2013; Milner 2010)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 19 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Priority flora species recorded from the study area – records from present assessment

Figures 6-8 and Table 4 indicate the distribution of records of threatened flora collected as a consequence of the assessment of 15 November 2013 (ECOtas 2013) and 19 March 2014. Refer also to Appendix D for annotated images of threatened flora.

Table 4. Details of records of threatened flora recorded as part of present assessments (15 November 2013 & 19 March 2014) [status: EPBCA = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; TSPA = Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995]

Easting Northing Location Comments

Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

15 November 2013 single small clump of c. 5 individuals on muddy edge of small dam; co-occurs with Myriophyllum integrifolium (same grid reference); same dam also supports Siloxerus multiflorus, near old dam close to Aphelia pumilio and Stylidium despectum near the edges; a 541824 5369782 old quarry green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis) was also heard from the low vegetation at the western edge of the dam 19 March 2014 no additional records; small dam wholly dried and ephemeral plants unidentifiable

Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: v]

15 November 2013 single plant collected and observed but suspect tiny green “seedlings” along dam margin are at least partially this species; near old dam close to 541824 5369782 see under Aphelia gracilis for more detail old quarry 19 March 2014 no additional records; small dam wholly dried and ephemeral plants unidentifiable

Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

15 November 2013 several (10s to 100s – only c. 10 in full flower but 10s of minute seedlings) over c. 2 m2 of the western margin of dam; in patch near old dam close to with dense swards of Siloxerus multiflorus and Aphelia pumilio; 541814 5369758 old quarry also adjacent to site where green and gold frog was heard 19 March 2014 no additional records; small dam wholly dried and ephemeral plants unidentifiable

15 November 2013 small patch of c. 10-20 individuals (only five in flower) in c. 0.25 m2 of muddy dam edge; next dam to west of dam cited 541783 5369761 edge of dam above for other species 19 March 2014 no additional records; small dam wholly dried and ephemeral plants unidentifiable

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 20 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Easting Northing Location Comments

Hypoxis vaginata (sheathing yellowstar) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

15 November 2013 single fruiting individual (cannot assign to infrataxon due to lack of fresh reproductive parts); individuals of Hypoxis were numerous across poorly-drained parts of the study area but all proved to be Hypoxis hygrometrica var. hygrometrica (hairy leaves), indicating that the present survey was probably on old track next to marginally too late to easily detect Hypoxis vaginata (which was 541804 5369712 puddle near old reported as widespread and common by Milner (2010) and quarry North Barker Ecosystem Services) 19 March 2014 no additional records; survey well past flowering period (some unidentifiable native “lilies” in late fruit were present throughout much of the non-sandy areas of the study rea, which were possibly this species (this observation would accord with the observations reported by North Barker Ecosystem Services)

Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: v]

15 November 2013 locally dense patch of c. 150-200 stems (relatively difficult to count as only about 10% in flower) over c. 5 x 4 m; occurs in grassy Eucalyptus amygdalina woodland on a slight rise; relatively intensive searching failed to detect additional patches in the vicinity

on edge of main 19 March 2014 542132 5370082 track through title no additional records but survey well outside peak flowering period; known site reported above re-assessed and species could not be detected, confirming the non-flowering status of the species at the time of survey (noted that Australian Bauxite Limited have erected “caution” style tape along the edge of the gravel track near this population to ensure it is not disturbed during works in the area – no evidence of disturbance to site observed)

Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

541824 5369782

542076 5370768

541678 5370595

542033 5370595 15 November 2013 542031 5370617 1000s to 10s of 1000s present across study area, most strongly widespread; grid associated with old grassy tracks and openings in the canopy; 542059 5370703 reference indicate rare in adjacent grassy forest (either actually rare and/or simply sites where species hard to detect amongst dense grass); usually co-occurs with 542133 5370550 observed but Siloxerus multiflorus 542046 5370351 substantially more 19 March 2014 widespread 541925 5370329 no additional records but survey well outside peak flowering period; species no longer detectable at previously GPSed 541640 5370017 locations

541814 5369758

542037 5370910

542078 5370757

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 21 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Easting Northing Location Comments

Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

542076 5370768 542081 5370776 542157 5370383 542149 5370383

542137 5370359 15 November 2013 542126 5370349 widespread; grid see under Aphelia pumilio for details – almost always co-occur reference indicate or occur very close to one another 542102 5370353 sites where species 19 March 2014 541969 5370338 observed but substantially more no additional records but survey well outside peak flowering 541642 5370012 widespread period; species no longer detectable at previously GPSed 541653 5370000 locations 541681 5369972 542086 5370327 542128 5370323 541814 5369758

Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

542081 5370780 542076 5370788 542085 5370798 542088 5370806 542091 5370839 542080 5370854 542074 5370872 541669 5370883 541468 5370632 541479 5370614 541646 5370550 15 November 2013 542050 5370714 widespread; grid reference indicate each grid reference represents a nominal point over a flowering 542061 5370733 sites where species plant; usually at least five plants were present at each “site” but 542118 5370344 observed but numerous sites between nearby grid references were not noted substantially more as the species was often locally common; total population in 541814 5370314 widespread order of 1000s in a range of different habitats 541522 5370075 541588 5370047 542109 5370324 542056 5370786 542050 5370788 542051 5370795 542042 5370806 542042 5370806 542040 5370809 542029 5370817 542033 5370834

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 22 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Easting Northing Location Comments

542037 5370844 542028 5370848 542021 5370850 542023 5370859 542041 5370885 541978 5370887 541979 5370883 541967 5370915 542078 5371639 541989 5371680 541521 5371344 541275 5370244 541275 5370218 541270 5370205 541261 5370164 541244 5370083 541245 5370060 541238 5370039 541228 5370009 542177 5370161 542227 5370652 541425 5369714 541233 5370003 541232 5370023 541254 5370117 541307 5370400 19 March 2014 541187 5369745 as above several new sites in addition to those recorded on 15 November 2013 but all in fruit (none in flower) so some probably 542130 5370035 overlooked; habitat and occurrence as per 15 November 2013 542124 5369992 542127 5369959 542124 5369926 542112 5370526

Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius (shortleaf beardheath) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

542046 5371028 542020 5371074 541963 5371049 15 November 2013 541691 5371028 locally frequent and dominant , especially on sandy rises; becomes less abundant as bracken becomes dominant and 541670 5370966 widespread on sandy ground becomes stonier; grades into var. virgatus on stonier 541704 5370843 ground ground – separating the two infrataxa in the field was problematic as several characters graded into each other 541725 5370806 (especially degree of leaf hairiness, sharpness of leaf apex and 541634 5370784 length of leaf 541403 5370755 541416 5370704

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 23 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Easting Northing Location Comments

541926 5371675 541723 5371400 541287 5370315 541314 5370408 541331 5370408 541351 5370418 541356 5370438 541374 5370490 541521 5369816 541519 5369762 19 March 2014 541514 5369745 several new sites in addition to those recorded on 15 November 541353 5369732 as above 2013; habitat and occurrence as per 15 November 2013; 541842 5369603 gradation of varieties into one another confirmed, especially in southeastern part of study area 541330 5370541 541456 5370690 541489 5370777 542123 5370013 541358 5370679 541645 5370780 541729 5371031 542039 5371081

Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia (prickly woodruff) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

15 November 2013 542133 5369495 near main gate locally dense patch; c. 20 m2; impractical to estimate abundance 542138 5370094 north of population of 15 November 2013 542171 5370111 Stackhousia locally dense patch; grid references indicate approximate subterranea 542146 5370144 population extent; impractical to estimate abundance

542201 5370098 extension of previous 19 March 2014 542175 5370098 populations “new” sites are minor extensions to previously reported patches

Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: r]

540855 5370487 540846 5370493 540765 5370506 540625 5370530 15 November 2013 540552 5370540 between main forested area and locally dominant between cultivated barley crop and fenced off 540500 5370545 small ore body to pasture and forest remnants; probably spread by frequent slashing and stock movements; absent from adjacent forest 540479 5370552 west remnants (may be sampling artefact or due to heavy grazing) 540277 5370596 540183 5370618 540171 5370618 540068 5370636

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 24 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Easting Northing Location Comments

542227 5370652 15 November 2013 542224 5370657 scattered tussocks along main track; does not appear to extend into adjacent forest (other species of Austrostipa present); 542220 5370660 on track south of old potentially introduced to immediate area by farm machinery army camp 542187 5370662 and/or stock movements from pasture areas where species appears to be widespread and locally dominant; c. 50-100 542177 5370666 tussocks between indicated grid references scattered along paddock margin 19 March 2014 541200 5369873 (western side of locally frequent but dry conditions and continual grazing in fence and internal pasture probably masking true abundance track) 542201 5370098 19 March 2014 542175 5370098 scattered in forest in scattered in open grassy woodland on gravelly rises and on southeast of study more densely shrubby/grassy slopes; difficult to estimate 542203 5370119 area abundance as co-occurring with other Austrostipa species and dry periods has caused flowerheads to wither

Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: v]

541384 5369730 541429 5369768 541406 5369803 541384 5369804 541235 5369862 541228 5369866 541205 5369875 541207 5369888 541209 5369911 541211 5369918 541220 5369953 19 March 2014 541225 5369972 all new sites, previously not detected but apparently now obvious (most in vegetative or fruiting stage but several also 541233 5369978 widespread, mainly in with bright yellow flowers, so probably not overlooked at most 541255 5369993 southern half of individual locations; tends to occur in low numbers at each study area 541239 5370032 particular site, often associated with the sedgy fringes of open 541280 5370287 woodland, mainly on gravelly rather than deeper sandy substrates 541300 5370388 541255 5369799 541173 5369748 541193 5369819 542167 5369820 542163 5369788 542024 5370538 542015 5370535 542114 5370528 542226 5370487 542065 5370880

Cynoglossum australe (coast houndstongue) [EPBCA: -; TSPA: a]

542278 5370321 19 March 2014 localised to fenceline highly localised patches associated with densely grassy Acacia- between paddock and dominated woodland along the title fenceline between 542282 5370336 forest “paddocks” and the forest

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 25 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Potential impacts of the proposal on threatened flora

Various aspects of the bauxite exploration and extraction (and subsequent rehabilitation of disturbed land) have the potential to impact on the species of threatened flora identified from the proposed disturbance footprint. The nature and degree of impact varies between species, based on their distribution within the subject area relative to their Statewide distribution, their conservation status, and the response of the species to disturbance. Given that the supporting vegetation type is threatened in its own right under Tasmanian legislation, it is assumed that a land use principle will be to rehabilitate disturbed forest and woodland to a similar vegetation type such that there is no net loss of this vegetation type locally, regionally and at a Statewide level. On this basis, in the longer term, there is unlikely to be a net loss of potential habitat for the identified threatened flora species such that the management requirements are centred on ensuring viable populations are maintained on-site during any exploration and extraction works so that the species can recolonise and/or persist post-disturbance and through the rehabilitation activities. Table 5 lists the identified threatened flora from the study area and comments on the distributional significance and context, with notes on suggested on-site mitigation options.

Table 5. Significance and suggested management of identified threatened flora species [status: EPBCA = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; TSPA = Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995]

Status Species TSPA Distributional context Mitigation options EPBCA

Based on current surveys, this species appears to be restricted to a single site associated with an ephemeral shallow “dam”, which also supports other species of threatened flora (three of which are also restricted to this localised site), and also supports Litoria raniformis (green and golden Range extension: no frog), and EPBCA- and TSPA-listed species. Aphelia gracilis r Range in-filling: not significant It is recommended that the area with the (slender fanwort) - ephemeral shallow “dams” and the Novel habitat: no (typical) immediate catchment (meaning a pragmatic buffer of c. 50 m) be excluded from disturbance associated with extraction of bauxite. Some specialist on-site advice may be needed to define a practical buffer and this should be flagged in the field prior to intensive operations to minimise the risk of disturbance.

Range extension: no Range in-filling: minor (several records in the Midlands to the west of site Stylidium despectum r As per Aphelia gracilis (effectively the same but other nearest records are site). (small triggerplant) - from near Bicheno, Hobart and the north coast) Novel habitat: no (typical for Midlands)

Myriophyllum Range extension: marginal v integrifolium (most easterly record by a As per Aphelia gracilis (effectively the same - matter of a few hundred site). (tiny watermilfoil) meters with recent records

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 26 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Distributional context Mitigation options EPBCA from the poorly-drained “pasture” to the southwest between the study area and the Esk Main Road) Range in-filling: no Novel habitat: no (typical)

Given the highly localised patch of the species and its conservation status, it is recommended that the site supporting the species is excluded from disturbance and a pragmatic buffer zone be applied. There is an existing well-formed gravel road within metres of the site but there is a low risk of Stackhousia Range extension: no v disturbance provided machinery and vehicles subterranea Range in-filling: minor are excluded (“caution” type flagging tape - (grassland candles) Novel habitat: no (typical) has already been placed along the road verge). Continued use of the road is considered acceptable but the road should not be widened to the east at this location. A buffer of c. 30 m from the edge of the patch of the species is nominated as an appropriate and practical distance in which extractive operations should be excluded.

No special management prescriptions are recommended. It is probable that the species is more widespread across much of the subject area, especially the southern half. Range extension: no Extractive activities will only affect small Tricoryne elatior v areas of potential habitat and a proportion of Range in-filling: no (yellow rushlily) - the known sites such that the local population Novel habitat: no will be maintained. Some post-disturbance and during- to post- rehabilitation monitoring is suggested (see section below Table 5 for more detail on this concept).

Range extension: no No special management prescriptions are Range in-filling: minor (fills recommended. It is probable that the species the gap between Avoca to the will have been delisted by the time extractive east and Macquarie Tier to the Cynoglossum works commence as the species is r west of Campbell Town) australe widespread, locally abundant, well-reserved - Novel habitat: no (mainly a and is a disturbance-phile. If the delisting is (coast houndstongue) near-coastal species but incomplete and the sites will be affected, a Midlands populations occur in permit under the TSPA will still be needed but grassy Acacia-dominated special management prescriptions should not woodland and roadside be warranted. verges)

Austrostipa scabra Range extension: no r subsp. falcata Range in-filling: no As per Cynoglossum australe. - (sickle speargrass) Novel habitat: no

Arthropodium Range extension: no r strictum Range in-filling: no As per Cynoglossum australe. - (chocolate lily) Novel habitat: no

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 27 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Distributional context Mitigation options EPBCA

Hypoxis vaginata var. Range extension: no vaginata r Range in-filling: no As per Cynoglossum australe. (sheathing - yellowstar) Novel habitat: no

Despite the sites representing a minor range extension, the novel sites are not unexpected and further minor range extensions are expected in coming years. Within Tasmania, the species is apparently restricted to the area between Campbell Town, Bronte Park (and across the highlands) and north Bruny Island, with over 200 records reported. Range extension: minor (records a few kilometres The species often occurs in disturbed sites southeast and southwest, not and is likely to recolonise worked areas Asperula scoparia r an unexpected range without proactive management. The larger subsp. scoparia extension given the plethora patch essentially co-occurs with the - (prickly woodruff) of records) Stackhousia subterranea population, which is recommended for protection with a buffer, Range in-filling: no which would incorporate most of the Novel habitat: no population of Asperula scoparia. The other patches are not within predicted ore bodies to be worked. It is also likely that the conservation status of the species will be considered and it may warrant delisting. If this occurs prior to the works, no special considerations will be needed.

There has been considerable confusion in Tasmania over the status of the varieties of Leucopogon virgatus. The listed var. brevifolius was only detected in Tasmania in the mid 1990s but since then its range has been expended to include the Midlands lowlands and a few nearby areas, usually on infertile sites. But during the 2000s, many collections of the unlisted var. virgatus held at the Tasmanian Herbarium were re-determined as var. brevifolius, and this information made its way to DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database, making this taxon a widespread, well-reserved and Leucopogon virgatus Range extension: no common species. This has been questioned in var. brevifolius r Range in-filling: minor the last 12 months and once again a series of (shortleaf - re-determinations made, once again beardheath) Novel habitat: no restricting var. brevifolius to the original concept of the short-leaved, pubescent (softy hairy), low-growing shrub form of the Midlands and a few surrounding areas, almost always on infertile sites. At the “Fingal Rail” site, both varieties occur, with var. brevifolius most usually on the sandier substrates on rises and var. virgatus on the lateritic substrates on flats and gentle slopes. However, the varieties not only co-occur but appear to grade into one another, making determination of the precise distribution and abundance of the listed var. brevifolius problematic at this site.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 28 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Distributional context Mitigation options EPBCA The listed var. brevifolius mainly occurs outside the extent of the predicted ore bodies to be worked (generally not associated with the deeper sands). It is also clear that the species colonises and persists on disturbed sites, growing on a variety of track verges and centres. With this in mind, it is suggested that no special management prescriptions are warranted because only a small proportion of the local population will be disturbed. Some post-disturbance and during- to post- rehabilitation monitoring is suggested (see section below Table 5 for more detail on this concept).

The management of this species at this site presents an opportunity to monitor the impacts of topsoil removal and replacement on ephemerally flowering annual herbs. It co-occurs with the threatened Siloxerus multiflorus meaning management of the two can be combined. However, these species represent a suite of such species, including numerous non-threatened species. Given the widespread nature of both species at this site, their locally very high abundance and obvious ability to persist in highly disturbed micro-habitats (both occur in and Range extension: no Aphelia pumilio r around the old army camp on quite hard Range in-filling: no tracks and grassy track verges, and both (dwarf fanwort) - Novel habitat: no occur most abundantly on the myriad of old grassy tracks throughout the title rather than in the immediately adjacent denser grassy habitat – perhaps a function of detectability at one level but also appeared to be a genuine case of being most abundant on disturbed substrates), complex management prescriptions do not appear warranted. Having said that, trialling some localised topsoil removal, stockpiling and replacement is suggested, combined with post- disturbance and during- to post-rehabilitation monitoring is suggested (see section below Table 5 for more detail on this concept).

Range extension: no Range in-filling: minor Siloxerus multiflorus r (records to the northwest and As per Aphelia pumilio (essentially their (small wrinklewort)) - west, further infillings likely distributions overlap within the subject area). with more surveys) Novel habitat: no

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 29 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Recommended mitigation and monitoring strategy for threatened flora

The following actions are recommended in relation to the management of threatened flora for the project site. The above recommendations are general in nature at present and will need to be developed in more detail with officers of Australian Bauxite Limited once extraction sites and rehabilitation protocols have been established. However, these recommendations can form the basis of discussions with approval agencies. 1. General actions  Induct all Australian Bauxite Limited staff and subcontractors working on the site to the presence of threatened flora and the management requirements related to specific sites.  Ensure a map of key management sites is available to all relevant staff and subcontractors at all times. 2. Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles)  Protect the known population by establishing a “barrier” to minimise the risk of vehicles and machinery entering the exclusion zone (“caution”-style flagging tape or barrier mesh is suggested for placement along the verge of the existing road).  Establish a buffer zone within which no extractive activities will be undertaken – buffer is suggested as 30 m around the edge of the population.  Ensure the buffer zone is flagged appropriately prior to works commencing.  Use of the existing track, which will be within the buffer zone and is very close to the population, can continue but no widening of the track should occur on its eastern margin within the buffer zone. 3. Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant), Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil), Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort)  These species co-occur associated with a series of artificial shallow and ephemeral “dams” (essentially scrapes from old gravel extraction works) outside areas currently identified as extractive bauxite zones. The site is also associated with the listed Litoria raniformis (green and golden frog) and may also be important at a localised level for the listed Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil).  Exclude the area with the ephemeral shallow “dams” and the immediate catchment (meaning a pragmatic buffer of c. 50 m) from disturbance associated with extraction of bauxite.  Some specialist on-site advice may be needed to define a practical buffer and this should be flagged in the field prior to intensive operations to minimise the risk of disturbance.  Existing tracks immediately adjacent to the localised “dams” should not be upgraded (risk of changing water supply to “dams”) but can be used for vehicles and light machinery because the ephemeral species require maintenance of bare ground to persist so “closing” tracks is not warranted. 4. Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort), Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort)  Sections of topsoil known to support the species should be removed and stockpiled (ideally where the species have not been recorded but given the widespread nature of the species, this may not be practical) during extractive activities, such that the originally exposed soil surface remains so oriented during storage.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 30 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Given that topsoil removal and stockpiling is a routine part of extraction and rehabilitation for the type of works proposed, only limited “sections” need to be treated as indicated with the majority of topsoil treated as “usual” (assuming this means some mixing of soil and vegetative material).  The idea of careful treatment of limited sections is to allow a comparison of careful treatment against routine management of topsoil for this type of works. A section is recommended to comprise a practical “scrape” by machinery on the site (e.g. excavator scoop-sized topsoil scrapes carefully removed, shifted off to the side and stockpiled “face up”). A minimum of five such sections are recommended within extraction sites, with a minimum of three to include each species.  Upon completion of extraction, the stockpiled topsoil sections should be used in the rehabilitation of the worked area, with the sections identified in the field to facilitate annual monitoring.  Each spring, for a minimum of 3 years, but also at a later date (e.g. 8-12 year mark), monitoring should be undertaken of the rehabilitated areas, with quadrats established that cover undisturbed areas adjacent to worked areas, incorporating patches where topsoil was treated routinely and also the specific sections of carefully managed topsoil. A minimum of 20 1 x 1 m quadrats may be required. The timing of the spring survey will depend on seasonal conditions and the flowering of the species elsewhere in the Midlands i.e. it must be timed to coincide with the peak flowering. The 8-12 years after rehabilitation is suggested to gain a longer term view of impacts but the precise timing is not critical because it will depend on long term weather patterns (these ephemeral species can go undetected for many years during periods of drought for example).  Existing tracks immediately adjacent to the localised “dams” should not be upgraded (risk of changing water supply to “dams”) but can be used for vehicles and light machinery because the ephemeral species require maintenance of bare ground to persist so “closing” tracks is not warranted. 5. Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius (shortleaf beardheath)  Establish a minimum of three 100 m long transects that capture undisturbed and predicted disturbed sites and record the number of individuals (probably in a 1-2 m wide transect) pre- and post-extraction and say five years post-completion of rehabilitation.  Note that this is for academic information only as no specific special management prescriptions are recommended.  Note also that the same transects could be used to monitor species such as Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily) and Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily), and possibly even some of the ephemeral species.

Comments on priority flora recorded from databases

Table 6 provides a listing of priority flora from within 500 m and 5000 m of the study area (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases), with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Some species not listed on databases but considered by the author to have potential to occur in the survey area are also discussed. Note that the field assessment was not restricted to the species listed in Table 6 but considered any threatened flora with the potential to be present. While the database analysis utilises a nominal buffer of 5000 m, the author’s own experience of the greater northern Midlands area, combined with database interrogation, meant that the specific potential for numerous other species previously recorded from the wider area were taken into account.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 31 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 6. Records of threatened flora from project area (present survey added)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 32 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 7. Records of threatened flora from main part of project area (present survey added)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 33 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 8. Records of threatened flora from main part of project area (present survey added), also showing ore bodies (courtesy ABx)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 34 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Table 6. Priority flora records from within 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of study area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2013) and other sources where indicated. Habitat descriptions are taken from TSS (2003+), except where otherwise indicated.

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records within the study area

See Tables 2 & 3 for discussion of these records

Records within 500 m of study area

2 records Arthropodium strictum r [37 additional Species detected – see details in Table 4. (chocolate lily) - records within 5000 m

Species detected – see details in Table 4. 15 records Austrostipa scabra subsp. Note that some database records are allocated to r falcata [83 additional subspecies scabra (rough speargrass), which - records within probably represent a misidentifications because they (sickle speargrass) 5000 m] are from a period when the infrataxa were poorly understood.

Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy 3 records woodlands) present. This species was not detected Caesia calliantha r (may flower at a marginally different time to the set [76 additional of surveys already undertaken – most records in the (blue grasslily) - records within area are from early to mid-December). Site 5000 m] conditions are essentially ideal for the species over much of the forested area.

Potential habitat (heathy woodlands) is present. Surveys have probably been conducted at Caladenia filamentosa r approximately the right period (Wapstra et al. 2012; 1 record (daddy longlegs) - nearby record from 14 Nov. 1986). Site conditions are essentially ideal for the species over much of the forested area.

Potential habitat (grassy woodlands and forest, native grasslands) present. The surveys have been conducted at the right time to maximise the opportunity to detect the species, suggesting the absence is real or that the species is sporadic and difficult to detect. Site conditions are essentially ideal for the species over much of the forested area. 8 records The known site in the “Packston Reserve” at the Glycine latrobeana v entrance to the study area has now been searched [73 additional for twice without success. Due to this record close to (clover glycine) VU records within the title boundary, considerable time was spent in 5000 m] the grassy forest/woodland within the first 100 m of the title boundary i.e. the fringe of forest/woodland between the railway line and the rises further north towards the centre of the title boundary. While no actions are required under the TSPA (because no known sites will be physically disturbed), this is also an EPBCA-listed species. Under the EPBCA, consideration of the potential

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 35 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA impact on potential habitat can be made. In this case, given the level of timed targeted surveys and the absence of records, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the proposal will not have a significant impact on this species (see DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for a more detailed discussion).

Potential habitat (heathy woodlands) is present. The initial surveys on 15 November 2013 may have been marginally too early to detect the species (Wapstra et al. 2012), although detection of non-flowering rosettes may have been possible at the time of initial survey. Site conditions are essentially ideal for the species over much of the forested area so a follow- up survey was considered warranted. One of the problems with this species is an apparently potentially long flowering period with confirmed collections from as early as 18 November (Coles Bay area) to as late as 3 April (Coles Bay area also) with records of the species at full anthesis recorded by the author on 4 March (River and Rocks, Freycinet Peninsula) and 18 February (Rajah Rock, Pterostylis squamata r Fingal Valley – habitat very similar to parts of the 3 records (ruddy greenhood) - current study area). In theory, therefore, the survey efforts coincided with the potential flowering period. The known sites are probably from the “Packston Reserve” (see discussion in Table 2) at the entrance to the study area. This area was searched on both occasions with no success (although the site is now very disturbed and very different to the mid-1980s when the species was reported from here). Due to these records close to the title boundary, considerable time was spent in the grassy forest/woodland within the first 100 m of the title boundary i.e. the fringe of forest/woodland between the railway line and the rises further north towards the centre of the title boundary. These surveys were unsuccessful and it is reasonable to conclude the proposal is unlikely to significantly affect the species.

Stackhousia subterranea e 2 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (grassland candles) -

5 records Tricoryne elatior v [6 additional Species detected – see details in Table 4. (yellow rushlily) - records within 5000 m]

Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy woodlands, often associated with patches of bare soil such as rock plates, old tracks and road margins) 1 record present. The species is often recorded as one of a Triptilodiscus pygmaeus v suite of ephemeral annual herbs in this type of [119 additional forest, several of which were detected (e.g. Aphelia (yellow rushlily) - records within pumilio, Aphelia gracilis, Myriophyllum integrifolium, 5000 m] Siloxerus multiflorus) and the reason for its absence is unknown (possibly actually absent but more likely sporadically distributed and overlooked or flowering at a marginally different time to the surveys).

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 36 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records within 5000 m of study area, and not considered in above section

Potential habitat (sedgy to grassy swamps) essentially absent. Prime habitat is a site such as nearby Smiths Lagoon – poorly-drained sites within the study area were atypical of habitat of the species Amphibromus macrorhinus e and this distinctive grass was not detected. There is 3 records (longnosed swampgrass) - one sedge-dominated broad flat where there was a marginal opportunity for the species but surveys on two occasions during its peak flowering period (spring-summer) failed to detect it (tall grass, not easily overlooked).

Aphelia gracilis r 18 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (slender fanwort) -

Aphelia pumilio r 5 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (dwarf fanwort) -

Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy woodlands, often on broad valley floors) present. Austrostipa nodosa r This species was not detected. This species can co- 1 record (knotty speargrass) - occur with Austrostipa scabra (see above) but often occupies the more fertile sites, which have probably been historically cleared in this area.

Potential habitat (heathy woodlands) is present. Surveys have probably been conducted at approximately the right period (Wapstra et al. 2012; closest record from 7 Nov. 1985). Site conditions are essentially ideal for the species over much of the forested area. It is noted that this species has failed to be detected in the northern Midlands since 1985. While no actions are required under the TSPA Caladenia lindleyana e 1 record (because no known sites will be physically (lindleys spider-orchid) CR disturbed), this is also an EPBCA-listed species. Under the EPBCA, consideration of the potential impact on potential habitat can be made. In this case, given the level of timed targeted surveys and the absence of records, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the proposal will not have a significant impact on this species (see DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for a more detailed discussion).

Callitris oblonga subsp. v oblonga 2 records Potential habitat (flood-prone rocky rivers) absent. EN (south esk pine)

Potential habitat (native grasslands, often on broad Calocephalus lacteus r valley floors or sub-saline coastal fringes) absent 51 records (milky beautyheads) - (species tends to occur in open grassy situations lacking forest cover).

Potential habitat (grassy woodlands) present Colobanthus curtisiae v (somewhat atypical of most known sites in the 2 records (grassland cupflower) EN Midlands, which tend to be highly insolated grassland habitats). This species was not detected.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 37 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Dianella amoena r Potential habitat (grassy woodlands) present. This 1 record species was not detected (identifiable at any time of (grassland flaxlily) EN the year).

Potential habitat (poorly-drained grasslands and Gratiola pubescens v grassy woodlands such as low-lying swamps) 3 records (hairy brooklime) - marginally present (e.g. near dams, damp sedgy- grassy swales). This species was not detected. Potential habitat (poorly-drained grasslands and Haloragis heterophylla r grassy woodlands such as low-lying swamps) 30 records (variable raspwort) - marginally present (e.g. near dams, damp sedgy- grassy swales). This species was not detected. Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy woodlands, often associated with patches of bare soil such as rock plates, old tracks and road margins) present. The species is often recorded as one of a Hyalosperma demissum e suite of ephemeral annual herbs in this type of 1 record forest, several of which were detected (e.g. Aphelia (moss sunray) - pumilio, Aphelia gracilis, Myriophyllum integrifolium, Siloxerus multiflorus) and the reason for its absence is unknown (possibly actually absent but more likely sporadically distributed and overlooked or flowering at a marginally different time to the surveys). Hypoxis vaginata r 9 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (sheathing yellowstar) - Potential habitat (poorly-drained grasslands and Isoetes drummondii subsp. r grassy woodlands such as low-lying swamps) drummondii 2 records - marginally present (e.g. near dams, damp sedgy- (plain quillwort) grassy swales). This species was not detected.

Isoetes elatior r Potential habitat (permanent to flood-prone rivers) 1 record (tall quillwort) - is absent.

Potential habitat (poorly-drained sites such as Juncus amabilis r ditches, outflows of dams, grassy drainage 2 records (gentle rush) - depressions subject to ephemeral flow) present. This species was not detected.

Juncus prismatocarpus r 1 record As above. (branching rush) -

Leucochrysum albicans var. Potential habitat (native grasslands) marginally e present (somewhat atypical of most known sites in tricolor 3 records EN the Midlands, which tend to be highly insolated (grassland paperdaisy) grassland habitats). This species was not detected.

Leucopogon virgatus var. r brevifolius 3 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. - (shortleaf beardheath)

Potential habitat (poorly-drained grasslands and Lobelia pratioides v grassy woodlands such as low-lying swamps) 25 records (poison lobelia) - marginally present (e.g. near dams, damp sedgy- grassy swales). This species was not detected.

Muehlenbeckia axillaris r Potential habitat (variable but often shaly-stony 1 record ground near creeks or in open grasslands) probably (matted lignum) - absent. This species was not detected.

Myriophyllum integrifolium v 19 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (tiny watermilfoil) -

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 38 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy woodlands, often associated with patches of bare soil such as rock plates, old tracks and road margins) present. The species is often recorded as one of a suite of ephemeral annual herbs in this type of Phyllangium distylis r forest, several of which were detected (e.g. Aphelia 1 record pumilio, Aphelia gracilis, Myriophyllum integrifolium, (tiny mitrewort) - Siloxerus multiflorus) and the reason for its absence is unknown (possibly actually absent but more likely sporadically distributed and overlooked or flowering at a marginally different time to the surveys – tends to be detected during summer months more frequently).

Pultenaea humilis v Potential habitat (heathy woodlands of the Midlands) 4 records is present. This distinctive low shrub was not (dwarf bushpea) - detected.

Pultenaea prostrata v Potential habitat (heathy woodlands of the Midlands) 16 records is present. This distinctive prostrate shrub was not (silky bushpea) - detected.

Potential habitat (variable but includes native Ranunculus pumilio var. grasslands and grassy woodlands, often associated r with patches of bare soil such as rock plates, old pumilio 1 record - tracks and road margins) present. This is an (ferny buttercup) infrequently recorded species that is potentially present but was not detected.

Potential habitat (grassy woodlands and forests) Rytidosperma indutum r present. This species (detectable at any time of the 2 records (tall wallabygrass) - year from vegetative characters and old flowerheads) was not detected. Potential habitat (sedgy to grassy swamps) essentially absent. Prime habitat is a site such as nearby Smiths Lagoon – poorly-drained sites within the study area were atypical of habitat of the species Schoenus latelaminatus e and this distinctive grass was not detected. There is 4 records (medusa bogsedge) - one sedge-dominated broad flat where there was a marginal opportunity for the species but surveys on two occasions during its peak flowering period (spring-summer) failed to detect it (tall grass, not easily overlooked). Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy Scleranthus diander v woodlands) present. The species was not detected 1 record (tufted knawel) - (tends to occur in less heavily forested sites than are present).

Scleranthus fasciculatus v 4 records As above. (spreading knawel) -

Siloxerus multiflorus r 2 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (small wrinklewort) -

Stylidium despectum r 19 records Species detected – see details in Table 4. (small triggerplant) - Potential habitat (sedgy to grassy swamps) essentially absent. Prime habitat is a site such as Trithuria submersa r nearby Smiths Lagoon – poorly-drained sites within 5 records the study area were atypical of habitat of the species (submerged watertuft) - and this distinctive grass was not detected. There is one sedge-dominated broad flat where there was a marginal opportunity for the species but surveys on

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 39 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA two occasions during its peak flowering period (spring-summer) failed to detect it (tall grass, not easily overlooked). Potential habitat (grassy woodlands and native Vittadinia burbidgeae r grasslands) present. This species was not detected 8 records (smooth new-holland-daisy) - (all species of Vittadinia are currently in flower and easily detected).

Vittadinia gracilis r 1 record As above. (woolly new-holland-daisy) - Potential habitat (poorly-drained grasslands and Xerochrysum palustre - grassy woodlands such as low-lying swamps) 6 records (swamp everlasting) VU marginally present (e.g. near dams, damp sedgy- grassy swales). This species was not detected.

Additional species from Protected Matters Report (DSEWPaC 2013), and not considered in above sections

Potential habitat (flood-prone rocky river beds and Species or species’ Acacia axillaris v banks, adjacent rocky slopes and broad “damp” habitat likely to woodland flats) absent. Site is well outside predicted (midlands wattle) VU occur within area range of this species.

Species or species’ Barbarea australis e Potential habitat (rocky flood-prone river beds and habitat likely to adjacent banks) is absent. (riverbed wintercress) CR occur within area

Potential habitat (marshes and rocky river beds in Boronia gunnii v Species or species’ Cataract Gorge and Apsley-Denison river systems) habitat may occur is absent. The inclusion of the species in the (river boronia) VU within area Protected Matters Search Tool database is unwarranted.

Potential habitat (poorly-drained marshes below Species or species’ Boronia hemichiton e Mount Arthur near Lilydale) is absent. The inclusion habitat may occur of the species in the Protected Matters Search Tool (mt arthur boronia) VU within area database is unwarranted.

Potential habitat (marshes and rocky river beds in Boronia hippopala v Species or species’ the Dukes Marshes, Mount Puzzler and Elizabeth habitat may occur River areas) is absent. The inclusion of the species (velvet boronia) VU within area in the Protected Matters Search Tool database is unwarranted.

Potential habitat (heathy woodlands) is present. Surveys have probably been conducted at approximately the right period (Wapstra et al. 2012). Site conditions are essentially ideal for the species over some of the forested area. While no actions are required under the TSPA (because no known sites will be physically Caladenia anthracina e Species or species’ habitat known to disturbed), this is also an EPBCA-listed species. (blacktip spider-orchid) CR occur within area Under the EPBCA, consideration of the potential impact on potential habitat can be made. In this case, given the level of timed targeted surveys and the absence of records, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the proposal will not have a significant impact on this species (see DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications for a more detailed discussion).

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 40 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Potential habitat (usually lowland grasslands and Species or species’ Carex tasmanica - grassy woodlands, often in poorly-drained habitat likely to depressions) is present but the species was not (curly sedge) VU occur within area detected.

Potential habitat (usually dolerite-based slopes and ridges, occasionally riparian areas) is absent (not Epacris acuminata - Species or species’ dolerite). The inclusion of the species in the habitat likely to Protected Matters Search Tool database is (claspleaf heath) - occur within area unwarranted (de-listed from schedules of the EPBCA since the production of ECOtas (2013) but maintained in this table for completeness).

Potential habitat (flood-prone rocky riparian areas) Epacris exserta e Species or species’ is absent (usually dolerite-based). While the species habitat known to does occur along the South Esk River, the nearest (south esk heath) EN occur within area known site to the project area is 10s of kilometres downstream closer to Launceston.

Potential habitat (usually on disturbed sites such as Lepidium hyssopifolium e Species or species’ around buildings and under pine trees and otherwise habitat likely to grassy areas, sometimes including around bases of (shade peppercress) EN occur within area remnant “paddock trees”) marginally present. This species was not detected.

Prasophyllum incorrectum e Species or species’ Potential habitat (native grasslands, usually on habitat known to broad valley floors and adjacent slopes, often on (golfers leek-orchid) CR occur within area fertile substrates) is absent.

Prasophyllum tunbridgense e Species or species’ habitat likely to As above. (tunbridge leek-orchid) EN occur within area

Pterostylis commutata e Species or species’ habitat likely to As above. (midlands greenhood) CR occur within area Species or species’ Pterostylis wapstrarum e habitat likely to As above. (fleshy greenhood) CR occur within area Species or species’ Pterostylis ziegeleri v habitat likely to As above. (grassland greenhood) VU occur within area Species or species’ Ranunculus prasinus e Potential habitat (poorly-drained native grasslands) habitat likely to absent. (midlands buttercup) EN occur within area Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy woodlands, often on broad valley floors) present. This species was not detected. As far as can be Species or species’ Rytidosperma popinensis r ascertained, this species is virtually restricted to habitat known to immediate roadsides or adjacent disturbed areas. (blue wallabygrass) EN occur within area Habitat within the study area is atypical (species does not usually occur in more heavily forested areas). Potential habitat (dry sclerophyll forest or woodland Species or species’ Stenanthemum pimeleoides v with an open heathy or shrubby understorey) is habitat may occur present within the study area. This distinctive low (propeller plant) VU within area shrub was not detected. Potential habitat (near-coastal heathlands, heathy Species or species’ Xanthorrhoea arenaria v woodlands and stabilised dunes) is absent. The habitat may occur inclusion of the species in the Protected Matters (sand grasstree) VU within area Search Tool database is unwarranted.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 41 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Additional species considered by the author with potential to be present but not shown in databases

Asperula scoparia subsp. r no database scoparia Species detected – see details in Table 4. - records (prickly woodruff) Brachyscome rigidula v no database Potential habitat (native grasslands and grassy (cutleaf daisy) - records woodlands) present. This species was not detected. Cynoglossum australe r no database Species detected – see details in Table 4. (coast houndstongue) - records Potential variable (species is recorded from forest, Deyeuxia densa r no database woodlands and heathland at a range of elevations). records (heath bentgrass) - This species was not detected.

Deyeuxia minor r no database As above. (small bentgrass) - records Potential habitat (dry eucalypt forest and woodland, Ranunculus sessiliflorus var. native grasslands, often associated with rocky r no database sessiliflorus outcrops and plats and patches of bare soil) present. - records (rockplate buttercup) This annual herb, which is flowering at present elsewhere in Tasmania, was not detected. This species has been detected at numerous sites Senecio squarrosus r no database throughout Tasmania in a range of forest and non- (leafy groundsel) - records forest habitats. Potential habitat is present. The species was not detected.

Stellaria multiflora subsp. r no database multiflora See under Ranunculus sessiliflorus. - records (rayless starwort)

Fauna species

General observations

Appendix C (Table 7) provides an annotated list of vertebrate species detected during the course of assessments, which included 55 species comprising 9 mammal, 37 bird, 3 amphibian and 6 reptile species. The detection of these species was opportunistic and more targeted surveys are likely to detect a greater diversity of species. However, such surveys are not considered warranted for most species due to the localised extent of the any proposed disturbance footprint relative to the broader extent of habitat for such species.

Table 7. Summary of vertebrate species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS MAMMALS BIRDS AMPHIBIANS REPTILES 4 29 3 5 e 2 4 - 1 i 3 4 - - Sum 9 37 3 6 TOTAL 55

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 42 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Priority fauna species recorded from the study area – records from present assessment

Two fauna species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were recorded from the study area. Potential habitat for additional species was also recorded (see Table 8 for more details).

 Litoria raniformis (green and golden frog) On 15 November 2013, a single frog was heard calling from the edge of the eastern-most shallow “dams” formed in the scrapes associated with the old gravel pit areas (Figure 9; see also Appendix E for images). This site also supports several species of threatened flora, three of which were not detected elsewhere within the study area, adding to the localised significance of the site. In addition, on 19 March 2014, a small number of scats of Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) were detected from close to the “dam” (see below for more detail). At the time of the 15 November 2013 assessment, the “dam” was shallow (c. 10-20 cm deep) and dominated by sedgy macrophytes in and around the pond. There was a nearby pond of similar (perhaps slightly deeper) depth, unconnected to the first but linked by a narrow strip of grassy- heathy forest. By the time of the 19 March 2014 assessment, both dams were completely dry and the clay cracking with the macrophytes shrivelled to a dried crunchy crust on the baked mud. The area would hardly have warranted a second glance as potential green and gold frog habitat at this time. This site is significant for a number of reasons. First, the species has been in apparent massive decline in Tasmania over recent decades. Second, there are very few historical or contemporary records of the species from the Midlands. Third, the presence of the species at a locally and temporally transient site suggests that other drainage-impeded habitats in the wider area may be important for the species. The subject area, however, supports relatively small areas of such habitat, with one broad low-lying area in the central west dominated by sedges (mainly Lepidosperma longitudinale – usually an indicator of waterlogging) identified as the greatest potential to support Litoria raniformis (Figure 9 indicates the approximate extent of this site). This area was dry on both occasions of survey and no frogs were sighted or heard. The nearest records to the study area are from west of the Midland Highway (Hylands Flat) near the Midland Highway-Esk Main Road junction, reported on 18 September 2008. The next nearest records are from the 1960s (and undated so presumed historical) from the Campbell Town and Ross areas. Beyond this, records are few and far between until more near-coastal areas are reached around Hobart, Launceston and the east/northeast. Another important factor providing significance to the subject site is the lack of confirmed observations of the frog chytrid disease in the lowland parts of the Midlands-Fingal Valley, which is an apparent “hole” for the pathogen (whether this is a survey effort/reporting artefact or a genuine absence of the disease is not known). Maintaining chytrid-free populations of frogs, especially threatened species, is a key management objective. It is entirely possible that the area is not utilised by the species but a pre-clearance survey is considered prudent, and is in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs (CofA 2010) provided under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Surveys can be resource-hungry and it is recommended that the precise extent of disturbance from ore extraction is determined in the field prior to undertaking such surveys as it may be practical to entirely exclude the extent of potential habitat and ensure that no changes to the ecological condition (including drainage) of the area occur as a result of extraction. If the known site and the area of potential habitat can be appropriately protected, a permit under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 will not be needed and a referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 also not required (this may depend on the outcome of a targeted survey).

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 43 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

However, undertaking some broader area surveys may be considered prudent and diligent because it may be possible to demonstrate that the study area provides opportunistic and dispersal habitat only with larger waterbodies and drainage systems providing more important habitat elements. In this part of the species’ range, individuals are unlikely to move more than 1-2 km between sites (CofA 2009), so a nominal 2 km buffer around the study area was created in which to identify potentially suitable drainage features. Figure 10 indicates the location of such drainage features relative to the study area and recorded site. During a warmer period of the year (November to December is recommended), undertaking diurnal and nocturnal surveys in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs (CofA 2010) could be undertaken. This need not constrain the approval process because such surveys would be for information only. If the species is detected at nearby sites, post-disturbance monitoring could be undertaken to demonstrate persistence of the population. The implications of the proposal under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are discussed further under DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications.

 Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) A small cluster of scats (Figure 9; see also Appendix E for images) was detected from close to the “dams” described above for Litoria raniformis. Despite numerous tracks and open areas being traversed during two days of survey at different times of the year, this single site was the only evidence that the Tasmanian devil is present. Milner (2010) also did not report any findings in relation to this species. Wombats are relatively common through the area, especially on sandier ground, as evidenced by burrows and scats. Several burrows were examined for use by devils but no evidence of the devil noted with all burrows examined clearly occupied by wombats in recent times (fresh diggings, fresh scats). Having said this, devils can usurp wombat owners, even for short periods, and a snapshot assessment is simply indicative of current non-use by devils. The significance of the location is threefold. First, the scats were either overlooked on the 15 November 2013 survey or are new since that time, which indicates recent utilisation of the area. The age of the scats is such that they are less than 12 months old, probably considerably less. Second, while one patch of scats may relate to just one animal and this animal may be merely transient through the forested area, it is more likely it is indicative of a low density population in the general area, which is significant because the Devil Facial Tumour Disease has had a significant impact on populations of the species in the Midlands, although probably has not resulted in complete extinctions except at a highly localised scale. Thirdly, the site is adjacent to a temporary water source, suggesting that even the localised and temporary “dam” is important to fauna in the area. It is difficult to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the Tasmanian devil. On one scale, based on surveys to date, the extraction will not result in temporary or maternal dens being disturbed or destroyed because no such features have been found. On another scale, the disturbance will be temporary and of a relatively small scale in terms of areal extent of potential habitat disturbed, such that the long-term impact on the species is likely to be negligible. Whether pre-clearance surveys are warranted will be determined by the Policy & Conservation Assessment Branch (PCAB, DPIPWE) but this requirement should be based on the extent of ground disturbance being undertaken and the type of ground being disturbed. For example, if the majority of disturbance will occur in the lateritic soils, a pre-clearance survey may be unwarranted because the opportunity for dens is very low. However, if extensive areas of the deeper sandier ground will be disturbed, a pre-clearance survey may be warranted. Such surveys can be intensive, with diurnal habitat surveys required to locate potential den sites for later nocturnal camera-“trapping” using remote infrared motion-activated cameras (usually over several nights – cameras can be left on site unattended for weeks). The usual outcome of such surveys is that where dens are located they

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 44 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting either need to be avoided completely or protected from disturbance until they are unoccupied (this usually applies to maternal dens). Based on the above discussions, and the type of extraction proposed, the activity would not warrant referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as there will not be a significant impact to known sites (e.g. dens) or loss of potential habitat. This is discussed further under DISCUSSION Legislative and policy implications.

Comments on priority fauna recorded from databases

Table 8 provides a listing of priority fauna recorded from within 500 m and 5000 m (nominal buffer widths usually used to discuss the potential of a particular study area to support various species listed in databases) of the study area, with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded.

Table 8. Priority fauna records from within 500 m and 5000 m of boundary of study area Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2013), Bryant & Jackson (1999) and FPA (2014). Note that wholly marine, pelagic and littoral species are excluded from the table below because such habitats are absent from the study area and the proposed works will not deleteriously affect such habitats.

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA

Records within the study area

No records shown on databases from within the study area

Records within 500 m of study area

One patch of scats detected near small “dam” (same site where several threatened flora species 3 records Sarcophilus harrisii e and Litoria raniformis (green and golden frog) [20 additional records (Tasmanian devil) EN were detected). within 5000 m] See Priority fauna species recorded from the study area for more details.

Records and potential habitat within 5000 m of study area, and not considered in above sections

Potential habitat is described as “native forest with Accipiter novaehollandiae e mature elements below 600 m altitude, no database records particularly along watercourses” (FPA 2014). (grey goshawk) - These habitat elements are absent from the study area. Potential habitat is defined as “any eucalypt trees no known nests in forest (includes remnants). Potential foraging Aquila audax subsp. fleayi e within 1000 m of the habitat includes a wide variety of forested boundary of the (wedge-tailed eagle) EN (including areas subject to native forest study area silviculture) and non-forest habitats.” (FPA 2014).

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 45 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA No nests were observed within the study area. Surrounding areas also present as unsuitable potential nesting habitat (essentially the same low forest or open pasture). Potential habitat is “open, grassy/sedgy, low altitude grasslands and woodlands associated with wetlands and low-lying plains or flats adjacent to rivers/streams” (FPA 2014) and key habitat elements that need to be present “include sheltering sites such as patches of stones, coarse woody debris and/or cracked soils” (FPA 2014). Catadromus lacordairei v These habitat elements are only marginally 1 record (green-lined ground beetle) - present in highly limited parts of the study area, suggesting the species is unlikely to be present. Furthermore, FPA (2014) notes that the species is “a highly active and mobile flyer that often comes to ground close to water sources and is rarely found further than 250 m from such a source”, which further limits the likelihood of the species being present. Potential habitat is described as “coastal scrub, riparian areas, rainforest, wet forest, damp forest, dry forest and blackwood swamp forest (mature and regrowth), particularly where structurally complex and steep rocky areas are present, and includes remnant patches in cleared agricultural land” (FPA 2014), habitat types present within the study area. Dasyurus maculatus subsp. r No distinctive scats or den sites of this species maculatus 6 records were recorded. The study area may be used VU (spotted-tailed quoll) opportunistically by foraging or dispersing individuals but is unlikely to be considered as “critical” habitat. The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Potential habitat “is slow to moderately fast flowing streams containing permanent water (even when not flowing), which have good instream cover from overhanging banks and/or logs, and shade from overhanging vegetation” (FPA 2014). There are no permanent waterways present within Galaxias fontanus e the study area, and ephemeral drainages all pass no database records (swan galaxias) EN across open pasture before joining more major streams or rivers. The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. no known nests Haliaeetus leucogaster v within 1000 m of the See comments under wedge-tailed eagle. (white-bellied sea-eagle) - boundary of the study area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 46 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Species detected by a call from a small “dam” in the southern section of the study area on Litoria raniformis v 2 records 15 November 2013 (green and golden frog) VU See Priority fauna species recorded from the study area for more details. Potential habitat is “open vegetation types including woodlands and open forests with a grassy understorey, native and exotic grasslands, particularly in landscapes with a mosaic of agricultural land and remnant bushland” (FPA 2014). The study area supports potential habitat although Perameles gunnii subsp. no evidence of the species was detected - (e.g. distinctive diggings). It is reasonable to gunnii 1 records VU conclude that the study area is likely to be within (eastern barred bandicoot) the foraging activity range of one or more individuals. The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Potential habitat is “grassland and grassy woodland (including rough pasture with paddock Pseudemoia pagenstecheri v trees), generally with a greater than 20% cover of no database records (tussock skink) - native grass species, especially where medium to tall tussocks are present” (FPA 2014), which is absent from the study area. Potential habitat “is all areas with trees with large hollows (15 cm entrance diameter). In terms of using mapping layers, potential habitat is considered to be all areas with at least 20% mature crown cover” (FPA 2014) but is more conservatively considered to be eucalypt- dominated forest below c. 600 m elevation. Large trees with obvious large hollows are virtually absent from the study area. No individuals, or evidence of use temporary roosts of individuals, Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. e were observed – numerous Exocarpos castanops 5 records VU cupressiformis (native cherry) and Allocasuarina (Tasmanian masked owl) spp. (sheoaks) were specifically targeted. It is likely that this species uses the area opportunistically for foraging as potential foraging habitat is present. The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Additional species from Protected Matters Report (DSEWPaC 2013), and not considered in above sections

Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – study area Migratory Species or species’ Apus pacificus presents marginal habitat only and any works in Marine habitat likely to occur the area would not have a deleterious impact on (fork-tailed swift) Species within area the species.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 47 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Status Species TSPA Observations Comments EPBCA Migratory Species or species’ Ardea alba Wetland/ Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands habitat likely to occur (great egret) Marine and swampy habitats) absent. within area Species Migratory Species or species’ Ardea ibis Wetland/ habitat likely to occur As above. (cattle egret) Marine within area Species Species or species’ Botaurus poiciloptilus - habitat may occur As above. (Australasian bittern) EN within area Ceyx azureus subsp. Species or species’ e Potential habitat (tree-lined major river systems) diemenensis habitat likely to occur EN absent. (azure kingfisher) within area Migratory Species or species’ Gallinago hardwickii Potential habitat (natural and artificial wetlands Wetland habitat may occur (Lathams snipe) and swampy habitats) is absent from study area. Species within area Aerial foraging bird that rarely lands – study area Migratory Species or species’ Hirundapus caudacutus presents marginal habitat only and any works in Terrestrial habitat may occur (white-throated needletail) the area would not have a deleterious impact on Species within area the species. Potential habitat for the swift parrot is described as “Potential breeding habitat for the Swift Parrot comprises potential foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat, and is based on definitions of foraging and nesting trees. Potential foraging habitat comprises E. globulus or E. ovata trees that are old enough to flower. For management purposes potential nesting habitat is considered to comprise eucalypt forests that contain hollow- bearing trees” (FPA 2014). Eucalyptus globulus is absent from the study area. There are small areas of forest in drainage- Species or species’ impeded sites with a low canopy with some Lathamus discolor e habitat may occur Eucalyptus ovata but the proposed works are not (swift parrot) EN within area likely to extend to these sites (outside predicted ore body areas). There are some hollow-bearing trees present but the entire site is atypical of known breeding sites. The entire study area is well outside the predicted range of the species, as defined by State authorities (DPIPWE 2013; FPA 2014). The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Potential habitat present (species utilises a wide range of habitats but tends to be most frequent in dry open tall woodlands and forests and associated sheltered slopes/gullies). The species was not detected by sight or call during the assessment, Migratory Species or species’ which occurred during the peak spring-summer Myiagra cyanoleuca Terrestrial habitat known to sojourn of the species in Tasmania. (satin flycatcher) Species occur within area The extraction of bauxite over small areas followed by rehabilitation will not result in a “significant impact” on the habitat of the species, as defined by the guidelines (CofA 2009) related to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 48 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 9. Distribution of threatened fauna within study area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 49 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 10. Distribution of potential habitat of green and golden frog within 2 km of study area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 50 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Other ecological values

Matters of National Environmental Significance –Threatened Ecological Communities

The EPBCA Protected Matters Area report (DSEWPaC 2013) indicates that three listed threatened ecological communities are likely to, or may, occur within the report area, as follows, with comments on the reason for their absence:  “Eucalyptus ovata – Callitris oblonga Forest” (listed as Vulnerable and “likely to occur”): this vegetation community is restricted to flood-prone major rivers such as along the South Esk River, and while this river is to the north of the study area, the area does not support this vegetation type not potential habitat for its occurrence;  “Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens (listed as Endangered and “may occur”): the study area is at low elevation and well outside the range of this vegetation type; and  “Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania” (listed as Critically Endangered and “likely to occur”): the study area does not support any areas of native grassland being dominated by forest and woodland, with some surrounding grassland areas mapped as the TASVEG mapping unit “agricultural land” (see RESULTS Vegetation types Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study for more detail).

Weed species

Two species, classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, was detected from within the study area (Table 9, Figure 11, Appendix F for annotated images). Ulex europaeus (gorse) occurs as occasional small patches, mainly associated with the edge of tracks, fences and old building sites. Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle) is occasional in the paddock east of the main forested area, and even less frequent within the forested area. Cirsium vulgare (spear thistle) is occasional but nowhere prevalent – this species is not listed as “declared” but is often considered an “environmental weed”. No other pant species considered as potentially invasive, were detected from the study area. It is noted, however, that the “Packston Reserve” area near the entrance to the subject title is infested with several declared and environmental weeds such that this area should not be used as a temporary vehicle parking or office/induction area. Vehicles and machinery are unlikely to become contaminated if they utilise the main gravelled access through the “reserve” to the main gate. There are no formal requirements under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, beyond ensuring that the declared species do not spread from this municipality to another weed-free municipality. Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project. Pre-treatment of key sites adjacent to areas likely to be disturbed is also suggested. For example, removal (cut and paste and off-site disposal) of gorse, with periodic (e.g. 6 month) follow-up spraying and/or pulling of new seedlings, is suggested for at least the patch immediately east of the main gravel road. Ensuring machinery and vehicles that have operated in sites infested with slender thistle (i.e. paddock areas) do not enter un-infested forested areas without being subject to hygiene procedures is also recommended. Periodic monitoring of disturbed sites (e.g. rehabilitated areas) should form part of the broader post-disturbance activities.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 51 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Table 9. Details of declared and environmental weeds recorded from study area

Species Comments

Species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 [* = also “Weed of National Significance, WoNS)]

distribution: localised patch in far southwestern corner; localised patch along main gravelled access close to old army camp; small patches at old building site and along eastern fenceline between forest and pasture * Ulex europaeus threats: minor risk of further spread if physically disturbed, otherwise spread likely to be very (gorse) slow mitigation: suggest pre-clearance treatment of patches close to where vehicles and machinery will potentially physically disturb plants; refer DPIPWE website for treatment options

distribution: essentially localised to the paddock east of the main forested area; also localised patch at old building site threats: wind-dispersed seed, especially when mature fertile plants are disturbed, a considerable Carduus risk of establishing on disturbed bare ground; spread into undisturbed native forest, especially pycnocephalus with dense grassy understorey, less likely (slender thistle) mitigation: avoid vehicles and machinery driving through paddock area unless no evidence of the species is indicated (may not be present at all times of the year or in all years, depending on seasonal conditions and grazing history) or pre-treat infestations (refer DPIPWE website for treatment options); post-works and post- and during-rehabilitation monitoring and control is suggested (e.g. hand-pulling, hoe grubbing, localised herbicide spraying)

Species classified as “environmental weeds”

distribution: mainly present as non-fertile rosettes; occasional only; odd mature individual, mainly along eastern fenceline and in adjacent pasture Cirsium vulgare threats: minor threat to the ecological integrity of the native vegetation (spear thistle) mitigation: post-works and post- and during-rehabilitation monitoring and control is suggested (e.g. hand-pulling, hoe grubbing, localised herbicide spraying)

Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi

Phytophthora cinnamomi is widespread in lowland areas of Tasmania, across all land tenures. However, disease will not develop when soils are too cold or too dry. For these reasons, it is not a threat to susceptible plant species that grow at altitudes higher than about 700 metres or where annual rainfall is less than about 600 mm (e.g. Midlands and Derwent Valley). “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments” (TASVEG code: DAZ) is not considered a susceptible vegetation type because it generally occurs in areas inhospitable to the pathogen (Rudman 2005). No evidence (e.g. dead or dying susceptible plant species) was noted in the study area and it is reasonable to conclude that the pathogen is not present. Minimising the risk of the pathogen being introduced to the site, despite the unlikely persistence of the species due to environmental conditions, is considered prudent through application of the vehicle and machinery hygiene protocols suggested for minimising the risk of introducing environmental weeds to the site.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 52 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Figure 11. Distribution of environmental weeds within the study area and adjacent area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 53 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Myrtle wilt and rust

The study area does not support species of Nothofagus (myrtle beech) and no evidence of the pathogen was noted (i.e. no dead or dying susceptible plant species). No evidence of myrtle rust was noted. No special management prescriptions are required.

Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens

Native freshwater species and habitat are under threat from freshwater pests and pathogens including Phytophthora cinnamomi (root rot), Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Chytrid frog disease), Mucor amphibiorum (platypus Mucor disease) and the freshwater algal pest Didymosphenia geminata (Didymo) (Allan & Gartenstein 2010). Freshwater pests and pathogens are spread to new areas when contaminated water, mud, gravel, soil and plant material or infected animals are moved between sites. Contaminated materials and animals are commonly transported on boots, equipment, vehicles tyres and during road construction and maintenance activities. Once a pest pathogen is present in a water system it is usually impossible to eradicate. The manual Keeping it Clean - A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010) provides information on how to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens in Tasmanian waterways wetlands, swamps and boggy areas. An important factor providing significance to the subject site is the lack of confirmed observations of the frog chytrid disease (Figure x) in the lowland parts of the Midlands-Fingal Valley, which is an apparent “hole” for the pathogen (whether this is a survey effort/reporting artefact or a genuine absence of the disease is not known). Maintaining chytrid-free populations of frogs, especially threatened species, is a key management objective. Protecting the known site of Litoria raniformis from disturbance (especially changes to drainage patterns and water-holding capacity), and minimising disturbance to potential habitat, is recommended through careful placement of access tracks, management of extraction and rehabilitation activities and application of vehicle/machinery hygiene protocols.

DISCUSSION

Summary of key findings

Non-priority flora (e.g. species of biogeographic significance)  One species of potentially high conservation significance was detected: Pheladenia deformis (blue fairies) was identified from one site, which is probably outside areas to be disturbed, such that special management is not considered warranted. Non-priority fauna (e.g. species of biogeographic significance)  No species of high conservation significance detected – no special management actions required. Threatened flora  No plant species, listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were detected within the study area – no special management actions are required.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 54 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

 Thirteen plant species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were detected within the study area, as follows:  Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily): widespread and locally common, effectively throughout area and habitats [rare];  Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius (shortleaf beardheath): basically restricted to sandy rises but locally common to dominant in some areas to scattered in others [rare];  Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort): locally frequent and widespread on many old tracks and slightly poorly-drained areas away from sandy areas [rare];  Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort): as above (co-occur in many locations) [rare];  Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort): one site only, associated with “dam” margin in southern area [rare];  Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil): as above [vulnerable];  Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant): as above (but two sites at two different “dams”) [rare];  Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia (prickly woodruff): dense patch near main gate, another north of Stackhousia subterranea site [rare];  Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles): one patch of c. 150-200 in 5 x 4 m area [endangered];  Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass): abundant along fenceline between main patch of forest and remnant to west; scattered along track south of old army camp; elsewhere occasional [rare];  Hypoxis vaginata (sheathing yellowstar): as per Milner (2010) and North Barker observations (i.e. widespread and locally common); one found fruiting near dam as part of present surveys [rare];  Cynoglossum australe (coast houndstongue): localised patches along forest-pasture fenceline on eastern boundary of title [rare]; and  Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily): widespread in southern part of study area, with localised patches, especially associated with sedgy understorey and edges of tracks [vulnerable].  A permit to disturb these species will be required, which will include the development of detailed management prescriptions including protection of some sites, topsoil management at other sites, and long-term monitoring. Threatened fauna  Evidence of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the green and golden frog (Litoria raniformis) was detected from the study area. Both species are listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, as endangered and vulnerable, respectively.  Further surveys for both species may be warranted, although this need not constrain further planning as such surveys can be undertaken as part of the development of the DPEMP and as part of conditions (e.g. pre-clearance surveys for devil dens, habitat and nocturnal call- back surveys at selected sites for the green and golden frog). It is unlikely that the presence of these species will fatally flaw the proposal.  There is potential habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll, eastern barred bandicoot, and masked owl. Field survey did not indicate actual presence of these species, and further survey is unlikely to be required.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 55 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Vegetation types  The study area supports one native TASVEG mapping unit:  “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments” (TASVEG code: DAZ).  The study area supports two exotic TASVEG mapping units:  “agricultural land” (TASVEG code: FAG); and  “permanent easements” (TASVEG code: FPE).  None of these vegetation mapping units are classified as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  DAZ is classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. This is likely to constrain the future land use post-extraction, with a requirement to ensure successful regeneration of the same vegetation type on disturbed sites. Weeds  Two species, classified as a “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, was detected from within the study area. Ulex europaeus (gorse) is restricted to a few small patches, and Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle) is only present in pasture areas.  Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project. Pre-treatment of key sites adjacent to areas likely to be disturbed is also suggested. For example, removal (cut and paste and off-site disposal) of gorse, with periodic (e.g. 6 month) follow-up spraying and/or pulling of new seedlings, is suggested for at least the patch immediately east of the main gravel road. Ensuring machinery and vehicles that have operated in sites infested with slender thistle (i.e. paddock areas) do not enter un-infested forested areas without being subject to hygiene procedures is also recommended. Periodic monitoring of disturbed sites (e.g. rehabilitated areas) should form part of the broader post-disturbance activities. Plant disease  No evidence of plant disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi, rootrot fungus; myrtle wilt; myrtle rust) was detected.  Minimising the risk of pathogens being introduced to the site, despite the unlikely persistence of the species due to environmental conditions, is considered prudent through application of the vehicle and machinery hygiene protocols suggested for minimising the risk of introducing environmental weeds to the site. Animal disease  The study area is likely to be free of the frog chytrid pathogen, as the lowland parts of the Midlands are an apparent “hole” for the pathogen. Protecting the known site of Litoria raniformis from disturbance (especially changes to drainage patterns and water-holding capacity), and minimising disturbance to potential habitat, is recommended through careful placement of access tracks, management of extraction and rehabilitation activities and application of vehicle/machinery hygiene protocols.  Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 56 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Legislative and policy implications

Some commentary is provided below with respect to the key threatened species, vegetation management and other relevant legislation. Note that there may be other relevant policy instruments in addition to those discussed.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Flora Thirteen plant species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were detected within the study area, as follows:  Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily): widespread and locally common, effectively throughout area and habitats [rare];  Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius (shortleaf beardheath): basically restricted to sandy rises but locally common to dominant in some areas to scattered in others [rare];  Siloxerus multiflorus (small wrinklewort): locally frequent and widespread on many old tracks and slightly poorly-drained areas away from sandy areas [rare];  Aphelia pumilio (dwarf fanwort): as above (co-occur in many locations) [rare];  Aphelia gracilis (slender fanwort): one site only, associated with “dam” margin in southern area [rare];  Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil): as above [vulnerable];  Stylidium despectum (small triggerplant): as above (but two sites at two different “dams”) [rare];  Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia (prickly woodruff): dense patch near main gate, another north of Stackhousia subterranea site [rare];  Stackhousia subterranea (grassland candles): one patch of c. 150-200 in 5 x 4 m area [endangered];  Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata (sickle speargrass): abundant along fenceline between main patch of forest and remnant to west; scattered along track south of old army camp; elsewhere occasional [rare];  Hypoxis vaginata (sheathing yellowstar): as per Milner (2010) and North Barker observations (i.e. widespread and locally common); one found fruiting near dam as part of present surveys [rare];  Cynoglossum australe (coast houndstongue): localised patches along forest-pasture fenceline on eastern boundary of title [rare]; and  Tricoryne elatior (yellow rushlily): widespread in southern part of study area, with localised patches, especially associated with sedgy understorey and edges of tracks [vulnerable]. Potential habitat is present for several additional threatened species, most of which are also ephemeral annually flowering herbs, with peak flowering later in the spring and into summer or strongly dependent on seasonal conditions such that detection is somewhat opportunistic and serendipitous. Timed targeted surveys have failed to detect additional species than those listed above.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 57 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Threatened flora on this Act are managed under Section 51, where a permit is required to knowingly “take” (which includes kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and collect), keep, trade in or process any specimen of a listed species. This section has applicability to threatened flora. Where threatened flora are likely to be disturbed, it is usual to apply for a permit under Section 51 of the Act on the required proforma to the Policy & Conservation Assessment Branch (DPIPWE). Seeking a permit to potentially disturb threatened flora is not technically possible as Section 51 refers to “knowingly” taking a species. A permit should only be sought when the degree of impact can be estimated (for example: which populations, or parts of populations, will be affected by particular activities). It is recommended that this report, which includes detailed recommendations on the management of all species of threatened flora detected from the study area, be used to develop a management and monitoring program within the DPEMP, and that both documents be used to facilitate and informal discussions with officers of PCAB (DPIPWE) prior to making a formal permit application. An on-site meeting may be prudent to discuss the extraction techniques and the extent of works, and a visit to a rehabilitated area may also be informative to demonstrate the success of such works.

Fauna Potential habitat of threatened fauna are more complex to manage under Section 51 of the Act because unless works would result in the “taking” of a specimen, a permit under the Act is not technically possible. However, it is usual for development proposals involving the disturbance of potential habitat of threatened species listed on the Act to be referred to DPIPWE for advice. In the absence of being in a position to issue a permit under Section 51 of the Act, PCAB may make recommendations to a development proponent in regard to managing habitat of threatened species and/or may endorse or comment on proposed offset/mitigation strategies. The State government (usually through DPIPWE) can make recommendations on mitigating adverse effects of activities on the environment, through the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System for Tasmania (RMPS), which includes promoting “sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.” The principles of the RMPS are embedded within Schedules of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The RMPS definition of sustainable development includes “avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment” (information sourced from the undated DPIPWE document General Offsets Principles”, downloaded from http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/SSKA-7UM3RT?open, 2 May 2010). In this case, the site supporting the green and golden frog has been recommended for exclusion and protection from disturbance, meaning that a permit under the Act should not technically be required. It is likely that State agencies will require a pre-clearance survey for devil dens shortly prior to works commencing at each area.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 No flora species, listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were detected from within the study area. There is a population of Glycine latrobeana (clover glycine), listed as Vulnerable on the Act, close to the study area (in the remnant roadside patch of woodland), which is unlikely to be disturbed. Potential habitat is present for several species listed on this Act but site surveys have failed to detect these. The Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities provide a Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2009) to determine if referral to the department is required. Additional guidelines are provided for particular species.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 58 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Flora It is noted that surveys timed to coincide with the peak flowering period of target EPBCA-listed flora species failed to detect the occurrence of such species. It is recognised that the potential survey area is large and many species are diminutive or occur sporadically, such that no survey can ever guarantee that a negative finding is due to a genuine absence, temporary absence (e.g. poor seasonal conditions) or from being overlooked. However, in this case, several surveys by different people have been undertaken, none of which have detected such species so it is reasonable to now treat the site as not supporting known populations of EPBCA-listed flora and only potential habitat of such species. With respect to the potential occurrence of flora species listed on the Act, any proposed disturbance within the study area will not constitute a “significant impact” because while there will be a modification of potential habitat, the loss is not such that it is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species (none known), reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No formal referral to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities under the Significant Impact Guidelines (CofA 2009) is warranted in relation to listed flora.

Fauna The general Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2009) is applicable to the eastern barred bandicoot and spotted-tailed quoll, neither of which are known from the site (potential habitat only). Any proposed disturbance within the study area will not constitute a “significant impact” because while there will be a modification of potential habitat, the loss is not such that it is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species (none known), reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No formal referral to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities under the Significant Impact Guidelines (CofA 2009) is warranted in relation to these two species. In relation to the Tasmanian devil, there is only an older (CofA 2006) policy statement (for when the species was still listed as Vulnerable). As an Endangered species, the criteria above are applicable. On the basis of one small patch of scats, it is reasonable to conclude that the devil utilises this patch of forest/pasture in some manner, although evidence suggests a very low carrying capacity (else scats would have been more widespread on the numerous tracks). Based on the temporary disturbance to vegetation only, with active rehabilitation, there will not be a long- term loss of potential habitat. It is difficult to anticipate the small population being fragmented or reduced in some way from the small-scale works over a relatively long period of time. The proposed works are not likely to interfere with the recovery of the species. Mining projects can carry additional risks such as an increased incidence of roadkill. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a low risk of roadkill within the forested area (tracks narrow and to be used during the day with vehicles restricted to low speeds due to the winding of the tracks), and that the volumes being extracted will not result in a major increases in heavy vehicles on the Esk Main Road or Midland

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 59 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Highway, both obviously already major roads passing mainly through an agricultural landscape. A pre-clearance devil den survey is likely to be undertaken of individual extraction sites. State-based mitigation (e.g. avoiding den sites by at least 50 m) will cater for any known sites, without further triggering the Significant Impact Guidelines. On this basis, no formal referral to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities under the Significant Impact Guidelines (CofA 2009) is warranted in relation to the Tasmanian devil. In relation to the green and golden frog, there is a specific set of Significant Impact Guidelines for the Vulnerable Growling Grass Frog (CofA 2009x) and a set of recommended Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs (CofA 2010). The significant impact thresholds are copied below.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 60 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

In the case of the current project, there will not be a permanent removal or degradation of terrestrial habitat within 200 m of a water body, which results in the loss of dispersal or overwintering opportunities for an important population. While it can be argued that the single site in the shallow “dam” is an important population as one of the only recent extant sites in the Tasmanian Midlands, the nature of the extraction will be such that there will always remain permanent and undisturbed corridors of terrestrial vegetation between the waterbody and other patches of potential habitat. In addition, there will be no alteration to aquatic vegetation diversity or structure, or alterations to wetland hydrology, diversity and structure. Therefore the first impact threshold is not triggered. The works will not result in a net reduction (any reduction) in the number and/or diversity of water bodies available to an important population. In fact, there may be opportunities to enhance potential habitat by utilising extract sites as future pond sites. There will be no permanent (or indeed temporary) terrestrial or aquatic habitat corridors, or construction of physical barriers to movement between water bodies. Therefore the first impact threshold is not triggered. However, in recognition of the importance of the local population, some additional surveys, in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs are recommended, with an emphasis on (1) confirming the continued presence of the species at the previously detected site beyond the long period of dry hot weather; (2) determining if any of the sedgy areas in the project area support the species; and (3) determining the wider occurrence of the species in artificial and natural drainage features within c. 2 km of the project area.

Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations A Forest Practices Plan (FPP) is required for most “clearing” activities in areas of forest and woodland (and for some activities within threatened non-forest native vegetation). Usually, an FPP is only required for clearing activities that exceed certain thresholds i.e. 1 ha or 100 tonnes of timber, from any one property in any calendar year. An FPP is required for any clearing on “vulnerable land”, which includes sites inhabited by threatened species or supporting threatened vegetation (both conditions are met for the present study area). Under the Regulations (section 4), circumstances in which an FPP is not required are specified, which include: 4. Circumstances in which forest practices plan, &c., not required For the purpose of section 17(6) of the Act, the following circumstances are prescribed: (i) the harvesting of timber or the clearing of trees on any land, or the clearance and conversion of a threatened native vegetation community on any land, in the course of mineral exploration activities, or mining activities, that are authorised under – (i) a permit granted under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993; or (ii) an exploration licence within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995; or (iii) a retention licence within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995; or (iv) a mining lease within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995. On this basis, while a Forest Practices Plan is not required for “clearing” of “forest” provided that a permit is issued under either of the listed Acts, note that separate approvals may still be required for other aspects of the project (e.g. disturbance to threatened flora).

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 The forested parts of the study area are classified as “Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments” (TASVEG code: DAZ), which is listed as threatened under

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 61 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Schedule 3A of the Act. The Act, however, does not provide direct administrative control of activities within listed vegetation types: such control is through other legislation, most notably the Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations. However, as discussed above, mineral exploration and extraction activities are exempt from the need for a Forest Practices Plan where a permit is issued under the Tasmanian Mineral Resources Development Act 1995. That Act in turn, however, does not provide any administrative controls on activities within vegetation types listed on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. Therefore, there does not appear to be a direct administrative control of mineral exploration and extraction activities within threatened vegetation. As a matter of principle, however, the management of threatened vegetation is recognised as an important aspect of conservation management in Tasmania. The objectives of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 provide some guidance on the matter, as follows: SCHEDULE 2 - Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania 1. The objectives of the resource management and planning system of Tasmania are– (a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and (b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water; and (c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning; and (d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); and (e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State. 2. In item 1(a), sustainable development means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while – (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. On this basis, it is reasonable to suggest that the intent of the listing of certain vegetation types as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 is to ensure that the impact on such vegetation types is minimised, within the context of sustainable development of resources. Evidence form disturbed sites (including clearfelled areas) within the vegetation type in question, DAZ, suggests that it is resilient to physical disturbance and can be managed to ensure its long-term viability through careful rehabilitation. It is recommended that the DPEMP developed for the project include provisions for rehabilitation of disturbed areas utilising native forest silviculture techniques such as local seed collection (ample seed will be available from felled trees), protection of seedlings (sown and natural) through retention and placement of coarse woody debris (e.g. Knox & Denney 2004), removal of silver wattle (if monitoring suggests it becomes tool competitive) and a regeneration monitoring program during rehabilitation that includes remedial action (e.g. hand sowing of bare or spare areas). There are well-established techniques and expertise within the forestry sector and incorporating monitoring of vegetation recovery into the broader monitoring program could be cost-effective and informative.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 62 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Tasmanian Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010 The assessment of the study area indicated the presence of species listed on schedules of the Regulations (i.e. “specially protected wildlife”, “protected wildlife”, “partly protected wildlife” – see Appendix C), and also some “products” (e.g. nests, dens, etc.) of these species were detected (most notably active and old burrows of wombats). Technically, a permit may be required under the Regulations of such features will be disturbed. DPIPWE are responsible for issuing such permits (there is a proforma that needs to be completed) but it is recommended that this be undertaken under advice of PCAB (DPIPWE) at the time of the recommended discussions of threatened flora and fauna.

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 Two species, classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, were detected from the study area, namely Ulex europaeus (gorse) and Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle). These species are subject to Statutory Weed Management Plans under the Weed Management Act 1999 (see information on weed section of DPIPWE’s web site). The study area falls within the Northern Midlands municipality, which for the management of both species is classified as a “Zone B” municipality (widespread infestations). In relation to “Zone B” species, “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication. The management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds. Application of the guidelines in Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens (Allan & Gartenstein 2010), and Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control (Rudman et al. 2004), is recommended for all stages of the project. Pre-treatment of key sites adjacent to areas likely to be disturbed is also suggested. For example, removal (cut and paste and off-site disposal) of gorse, with periodic (e.g. 6 month) follow-up spraying and/or pulling of new seedlings, is suggested for at least the patch immediately east of the main gravel road. Ensuring machinery and vehicles that have operated in sites infested with slender thistle (i.e. paddock areas) do not enter un-infested forested areas without being subject to hygiene procedures is also recommended. Periodic monitoring of disturbed sites (e.g. rehabilitated areas) should form part of the broader post-disturbance activities.

REFERENCES

Allan, K. & Gartenstein, S. (2010). Keeping It Clean: A Tasmanian Field Hygiene Manual to Prevent the Spread of Freshwater Pests and Pathogens. NRM South, Hobart. Baker, M.L. & de Salas, M.F. (2013). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania and Index to The Student’s Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. Bryant, S.L. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: What, Where and How to Protect Tasmania’s Threatened Animals. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2006). EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.6 Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities: Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 63 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2009a). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Department of the Environment & Heritage. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2009b). EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant Impact Guidelines for the Vulnerable Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Background Paper to the EPBC Act. Department of the Environmental, Water, Heritage and the Arts. CofA (Commonwealth of Australia) (2010). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs: Guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environmental, Water, Heritage and the Arts. DSEWPaC (Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities) (2013). Protected Matters Search Tool Report for approximate centre of the proposed development area (-41.81338 147.50078), buffered by 10 km, dated 14 November 2013 – Appendix H. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2013). Natural Values Atlas Report 59355 ECOtas_ABx_Conara for the approximate development area, buffered by 5 km, dated 14 November 2013 – Appendix G. DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment) (2009). Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments, Reporting on the Impact of Proposed Activities on the Natural Values and Providing Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts on these Values. Development and Conservation Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Duretto, M.F. (Ed.) (2009+). Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery: Hobart. www.tmag.tas.gov.au/floratasmania. ECOtas (2013). Threatened Flora Survey of Proposed Bauxite Mine, Esk Main Road, East of Conara (“Fingal Rail”), Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Australian Bauxite Limited, 19 November 2013. FPA (Forest Practices Authority) (2013). Biodiversity Values Database report, specifically the species’ information for grid reference centroid 541787mE 5370479mN buffered by 2 km, hyperlinked species’ profiles and predicted range boundary maps, dated 18 March 2014 – Appendix F. Harris, S. & Kitchener, A. (editors) (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart. Jones, D.L. (1998). A taxonomic review of Pterostylis in Tasmania. Australian Orchid Research 3: 135−177. Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. & Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of Tasmania. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania. Knox, B. & Denney, N. (2004). The excavator heaping silvicultural system. Forest Practices News 5(4): 3−6. Milner (Philip Milner Landscape Consultant Pty Ltd) (2010). Fingal Rail Target Area: Botanical & Fauna Habitat Survey of Proposed Drill Sites. Report for ABx Pty Ltd, 11th October 2010. Rudman T. (2005). Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines. Nature Conservation Report 05/7, Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart. Rudman, T., Tucker, D. & French, D. (2004). Washdown Procedures for Weed and Disease Control. Edition 1. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 64 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

TSS (Threatened Species Section) (2003+). Notesheets and Listing Statements for various threatened species. DPIWE, Hobart. Wapstra, M., Roberts, N., Wapstra, H. & Wapstra, A. (2012). Flowering Times of Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide for Field Botanists. Self-published by the authors (Third Edition, May 2012 version). Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 65 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX A. Vegetation community structure and composition The table below provide a detailed description of the native vegetation mapping unit identified from the study area. The list of species provided is representative dominant species only.

Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic sediments (TASVEG code: DAZ)

DAZ occupies all forested parts of the study area, including parts mapped under TASVEG 3.0 as NBA. The structure and composition of the forest varies considerably across the subject area, reflecting differences in underlying geology, derived soils, topography, aspect and drainage. On sandier rises, Eucalyptus pauciflora and Eucalyptus viminalis are the dominant canopy species, with Eucalyptus amygdalina sparse to co-dominant. The understorey of such sites is usually dominated by grasses and/or bracken (Pteridium esculentum) but is also occasionally heathy. Sites with impeded drainage tend to support a sedgy understorey, although localised patches of sedgy understorey occur throughout the subject area. Sites on lateritic soils tend to be dominated by Eucalyptus amygdalina with a heathy understorey (heavily grazed areas tend to be very open and grassy, now lacking a high species diversity).

LHS. Heathy facies of DAZ that dominates the lateritic substrates, with Eucalyptus amygdalina usually dominant in the canopy RHS. Bracken- and grass-dominated facies of Eucalyptus amygdalina-dominated areas of DAZ

LHS. Banksia marginata-dominated facies of DAZ RHS. Areas dominated by Eucalyptus viminalis are common, usually with a high proportion of Acacia dealbata in the understorey and abundant grass

On slightly more sheltered slopes (e.g. along eastern boundary), the understorey varies from grassy to shrubby. Some parts of the forest cover tend to a woodland structure with a lower density of overtopping eucalypts and a higher density of Acacia dealbata (and occasionally Acacia mearnsii) but such sites often have a relatively high density of eucalypt seedlings and saplings in the understorey such that classification as DAZ remains appropriate.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 66 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS. Eucalyptus pauciflora is locally dominant, usually on sandier substrates RHS. Gravel extraction and other land uses have affected the understorey diversity and density in many areas, especially on lateritic substrates

Localised areas have been intensively disturbed by gravel extraction, and one area from use as an army camp, but these areas support a sparse to dense eucalypt canopy and many understorey species (highly diverse in some sites, including many species of threatened flora) – such sites could be marginally classified as “extra-urban miscellaneous” (TASVEG code: FUM) but the vegetation structure and species composition is indicative of a now recovered native vegetation cover. Previous mapping (TASVEG 2.0, TASVEG 3.0, Milner 2010) did not separate the railway line from surrounding forest cover, mapping this linear feature as DAZ. However, while there is some canopy overhang, in reality the railway line is properly mapped as “permanent easement” (TASVEG code: FPE) – see below. Minor roads, tracks and anthropogenically disturbed sites (such as an old concrete foundation slab) have not been separately mapped as FPE or FUM because canopy cover is such that such features are virtually indistinguishable on aerial imagery and often such sites support a high diversity of native plant species.

Height (m) Species Stratum Cover (%) (underline = dominant, parentheses = sparse)

15-25 m Eucalyptus amygdalina, E. viminalis, E. pauciflora (E. ovata) Trees 20-40% [dominance depends on substrate and minor changes in topography]

eucalypt regrowth, Exocarpos cupressiformis, Acacia dealbata, Banksia 4-8 m Tall shrubs marginata 5-30% [dominance varies]

1-2 m Low shrubs as above 5%

<1 m Astroloma humifusum, Epacris impressa, Leucopogon virgatus, Acacia Low shrubs 5% spp., Pimelea spp., Hibbertia spp.

Poa spp., Lomandra longifolia, Dianella revoluta, Austrostipa spp., Grasses/graminoids 20-80% Dichelachne spp., Lepidosperma spp., Themeda triandra, Arthropodium strictum, Tricoryne elatior

Senecio spp., Wahlenbergia spp., Stylidium graminifolium, Siloxerus Herbs variable multiflorus, Aphelia spp., Poranthera microphylla, Cynoglossum suaveolens, Viola spp., Drosera spp.

Ferns 0-80% Pteridium esculentum

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 67 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX B. Vascular plant species recorded from study area Botanical nomenclature follows A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania Baker & de Salas (2013), with family placement updated to reflect the nomenclatural changes recognised in the Flora of Tasmania Online (Duretto 2009+); common nomenclature follows Wapstra et al. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania; (T)= species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; (D) = species listed as declared on the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 1 = ECOtas surveys; 2 = additional species reported by Milner (2010)

Table B1. Summary of vascular species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS DICOTYLEDONAE MONOCOTYLEDONAE GYMNOSPERMAE PTERIDOPHYTA 102 75 - 1 e 3 2 - - i 20 11 - - Sum 125 88 0 1 TOTAL 214

1 2 DICOTYLEDONAE AMARANTHACEAE Ptilotus spathulatus f. spathulatus pussytails + APIACEAE Centella cordifolia swampwort + Daucus glochidiatus australian carrot + ARALIACEAE Hydrocotyle callicarpa tiny pennywort + ASTERACEAE i Arctotheca calendula capeweed + Argentipallium dealbatum white everlasting + Brachyscome aculeata hill daisy + i Carduus pycnocephalus slender thistle (D) + Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata common dollybush + Centipeda elatinoides spreading sneezeweed + Chrysocephalum apiculatum common everlasting + i Cicendia filiformis slender cicendia + i Cirsium vulgare spear thistle + Coronidium scorpioides curling everlasting + Craspedia glauca common billybuttons + Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf + i Hypochaeris glabra smooth catsear + i Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear + Lagenophora stipitata blue bottledaisy + i Leontodon saxatilis hairy hawkbit + Leptorhynchos squamatus subsp. squamatus scaly buttons + i Logfia gallica narrow cudweed + Microseris lanceolata yam daisy + Millotia tenuifolia var. tenuifolia soft bowflower + Olearia ramulosa twiggy daisybush + Ozothamnus ferrugineus tree everlastingbush + Senecio glomeratus subsp. glomeratus shortfruit purple fireweed + Senecio hispidulus rough fireweed + Senecio prenanthoides common fireweed +

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 68 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Senecio quadridentatus cotton fireweed + Siloxerus multiflorus small wrinklewort (T) + i Sonchus asper subsp. asper prickly sowthistle + BORAGINACEAE Cynoglossum australe coast houndstongue (T) + Cynoglossum suaveolens sweet houndstongue + CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia gracilenta annual bluebell + Wahlenbergia gracilis sprawling bluebell + Wahlenbergia gymnoclada naked bluebell + Wahlenbergia multicaulis bushy bluebell + Wahlenbergia stricta subsp. stricta tall bluebell + CARYOPHYLLACEAE i Cerastium vulgare common mouse-ear + i Moenchia erecta erect chickweed + CASUARINACEAE Allocasuarina littoralis black sheoak + Allocasuarina verticillata drooping sheoak + CELASTRACEAE e Stackhousia subterranea grassland candles (T) + CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus angustissimus var. angustissimus blushing bindweed + Dichondra repens kidneyweed + CRASSULACEAE Crassula decumbens var. decumbens spreading stonecrop + Crassula sieberiana rock stonecrop + DILLENIACEAE e Hibbertia hirsuta hairy guineaflower + Hibbertia procumbens spreading guineaflower + Hibbertia prostrata prostrate guineaflower + Hibbertia riparia erect guineaflower + DROSERACEAE Drosera auriculata tall sundew + Drosera gracilis red sundew + Drosera peltata pale sundew + Drosera pygmaea dwarf sundew + ERICACEAE Astroloma humifusum native cranberry + Epacris impressa common heath + Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius shortleaf beardheath (T) + Leucopogon virgatus var. virgatus twiggy beardheath + Lissanthe strigosa subsp. subulata peachberry heath + FABACEAE Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle + Acacia genistifolia spreading wattle + Acacia mearnsii black wattle + Acacia melanoxylon blackwood + Bossiaea cinerea showy bossia + Bossiaea prostrata creeping bossia + Daviesia latifolia hop bitterpea + Dillwynia sericea showy parrotpea + Hovea heterophylla winter purplepea + Kennedia prostrata running postman + Platylobium triangulare arrow flatpea + Pultenaea pedunculata matted bushpea + i Trifolium repens white clover + i Trifolium subterraneum subterranean clover + i Ulex europaeus gorse (D) + GENTIANACEAE i Centaurium erythraea common centaury + GERANIACEAE i Erodium cicutarium common heronsbill + Geranium solanderi southern cranesbill +

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 69 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

GOODENIACEAE Goodenia elongata lanky native-primrose + Goodenia lanata trailing native-primrose + HALORAGACEAE Gonocarpus micranthus subsp. micranthus creeping raspwort + Gonocarpus tetragynus common raspwort + Myriophyllum integrifolium tiny watermilfoil (T) + HYPERICACEAE Hypericum gramineum small st johns-wort + Hypericum japonicum matted st johns-wort + LINACEAE Linum marginale native flax + LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pedunculata matted lobelia + MYRSINACEAE i Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel + MYRTACEAE e Eucalyptus amygdalina black peppermint + Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata black gum + Eucalyptus pauciflora subsp. pauciflora cabbage gum + Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis white gum + Leptospermum lanigerum woolly teatree + Leptospermum scoparium common teatree + ONAGRACEAE Epilobium billardierianum subsp. billardierianum robust willowherb + OXALIDACEAE Oxalis perennans grassland woodsorrel + PHRYMACEAE Mazus pumilio swamp mazus + PHYLLANTHACEAE Poranthera microphylla small poranthera + PITTOSPORACEAE Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box + Rhytidosporum procumbens starry appleberry + PLANTAGINACEAE i Callitriche stagnalis mud waterstarwort + Plantago varia variable plantain + Veronica calycina hairy speedwell + Veronica gracilis slender speedwell + POLYGALACEAE Comesperma volubile blue lovecreeper + PROTEACEAE Banksia marginata silver banksia + ROSACEAE Acaena echinata spiny sheepsburr + Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy + RUBIACEAE Asperula conferta common woodruff + Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia prickly woodruff (T) + Galium gaudichaudii subsp. parviflorum smallflower rough bedstraw + i Galium murale small bedstraw + Opercularia ovata broadleaf stinkweed + Opercularia varia variable stinkweed + SANTALACEAE Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry + SOLANACEAE i Solanum nigrum blackberry nightshade + STYLIDIACEAE Stylidium despectum small triggerplant (T) + Stylidium graminifolium narrowleaf triggerplant + THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea humilis dwarf riceflower + Pimelea linifolia slender riceflower +

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 70 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

VIOLACEAE Viola betonicifolia subsp. betonicifolia showy violet + Viola cleistogamoides shy violet + Viola hederacea subsp. hederacea ivyleaf violet + Viola sieberiana tiny violet + MONOCOTYLEDONAE CENTROLEPIDACEAE Aphelia gracilis slender fanwort (T) + Aphelia pumilio dwarf fanwort (T) + Centrolepis aristata pointed bristlewort + Centrolepis glabra smooth bristlewort + Centrolepis strigosa subsp. strigosa hairy bristlewort + COLCHICACEAE Wurmbea dioica subsp. dioica early nancy + Wurmbea uniflora oneflower early nancy + CYPERACEAE Isolepis cernua nodding clubsedge + Isolepis inundata swamp clubsedge + i? Isolepis levynsiana tiny flatsedge + Lepidosperma concavum sand swordsedge + Lepidosperma curtisiae little swordsedge + Lepidosperma filiforme common rapiersedge + e Lepidosperma inops fan sedge + Lepidosperma laterale variable swordsedge + Lepidosperma longitudinale spreading swordsedge + Schoenus apogon common bogsedge + Schoenus nitens shiny bogsedge + HEMEROCALLIDACEAE Dianella revoluta var. revoluta spreading flaxlily + Tricoryne elatior yellow rushlily (T) + HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis hygrometrica var. hygrometrica golden weatherglass + Hypoxis vaginata var. vaginata sheathing yellowstar (T) + IRIDACEAE Diplarrena moraea white flag-iris + JUNCACEAE i Juncus capitatus capitate rush + Juncus pauciflorus looseflower rush + Juncus procerus tall rush + Juncus subsecundus finger rush + Luzula meridionalis southern woodrush + JUNCAGINACEAE Triglochin nana dwarf arrowgrass + LAXMANNIACEAE Arthropodium milleflorum pale vanilla-lily + Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily (T) + Lomandra longifolia sagg + Lomandra nana dwarf mat-rush + Thysanotus patersonii twining fringelily + ORCHIDACEAE e Caladenia angustata narrowleaf finger-orchid + Caladenia carnea pink fingers + Caladenia clavigera clubbed spider-orchid + Caladenia fuscata dusky fingers + Caladenia gracilis musky finger-orchid + Cyrtostylis reniformis small gnat-orchid + Diuris pardina leopard orchid + Glossodia major waxlip orchid + Microtis unifolia common onion-orchid + Pheladenia deformis blue fairies + Pterostylis nana dwarf greenhood + Pterostylis nutans nodding greenhood + Pterostylis pedunculata maroonhood +

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 71 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Thelymitra erosa striped sun-orchid + Thelymitra ixioides spotted sun-orchid + Thelymitra nuda plain sun-orchid + Thelymitra peniculata trim sun-orchid + Thelymitra rubra pink sun-orchid + POACEAE i Agrostis capillaris var. capillaris browntop bent + i Aira caryophyllea subsp. caryophyllea silvery hairgrass + i Aira elegantissima delicate hairgrass + Austrostipa mollis soft speargrass + Austrostipa pubinodis tall speargrass + Austrostipa rudis subsp. australis southern speargrass + Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata sickle speargrass (T) + Austrostipa semibarbata fibrous speargrass + Austrostipa stuposa corkscrew speargrass + i Briza minor lesser quaking-grass + i Cynosurus echinatus rough dogstail + i Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot + Deyeuxia quadriseta reed bentgrass + Dichelachne crinita longhair plumegrass + Dichelachne rara common plumegrass + Dichelachne sieberiana delicate plumegrass + Elymus scaber rough wheatgrass + i Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog + Lachnagrostis aemula tumbling blowngrass + Lachnagrostis filiformis common blowngrass + Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass + i Poa annua winter grass + Poa hookeri hookers tussockgrass + Poa labillardierei var. labillardierei silver tussockgrass + Poa rodwayi velvet tussockgrass + Poa sieberiana var. sieberiana grey tussockgrass + Rytidosperma caespitosum common wallabygrass + Rytidosperma dimidiatum variable wallabygrass + Rytidosperma laeve smooth wallabygrass + Rytidosperma penicillatum slender wallabygrass + Rytidosperma pilosum velvet wallabygrass + Rytidosperma racemosum var. racemosum stiped wallabygrass + Rytidosperma setaceum bristly wallabygrass + Tetrarrhena distichophylla hairy ricegrass + Themeda triandra kangaroo grass + i Vulpia bromoides squirreltail fescue + PTERIDOPHYTA DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium esculentum bracken +

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 72 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX C. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area The following table lists the vertebrate fauna recorded from the study area. The list is based on opportunistic detection during the course of the more detailed botanical assessment. Intensive surveys for vertebrate fauna (e.g. dissection of logs, turning of stones, nocturnal and crepuscular surveys, trapping, etc.) were not undertaken. Vertebrate nomenclature follows the following texts for the different groups: Birds: Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood; Reptiles: Hutchinson, M., Swain, R. & Driessen, M. (2001). Snakes and Lizards of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 9. University of Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart; Amphibians: Littlejohn, M. (2003). Frogs of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 6 (2nd edition). University of Tasmania, Hobart. i = introduced/naturalised; e = endemic to Tasmania

Table C1. Summary of vertebrate species recorded from the study area

ORDER STATUS MAMMALS BIRDS AMPHIBIANS REPTILES 4 29 3 5 e 2 4 - 1 i 3 4 - - Sum 9 37 3 6 TOTAL 55

Table C2. Vertebrate fauna recorded from study area

Species Common name Comments Sight Scat Call Other

Mammals

Common brushtail Scats occasional; fur Trichosurus vulpecula + + possum at base of tree

several flushed; scats Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked wallaby occasional; footprints + + + in mud

1 flushed from sedgy e Thylogale billardierii Tasmanian pademelon + area

Several active and old burrows in sandy soil in north of study Vombatus ursinus ursinus Common wombat + + area; scats numerous in similar areas

Small patch of old e Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil fragmented scats + near shallow “dam”

Several seen; Tachyglossus aculeatus Echidna + + diggings numerous

i Oryctolagus cuniculus European rabbit Scats and diggings + + + occasional, especially

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 73 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Species Common name Comments Sight Scat Call Other

in sandy ground; 3 flushed from various areas

One flushed from i Lepus europaeus European hare western paddock- + forest interface

Scats and scratching; i Cervus dama Fallow deer none seen but + + evidence of hunting

Birds

Pair flushed from Coturnix ypsilophora Brown quail + near old army camp

Adult soaring high e Aquila audax fleayi Wedge-tailed eagle + above study area

2 on fenceposts on Falco berigora Brown falcon western and eastern + + forest margins

1 pair flushed from Phaps chalcoptera Common bronzewing southern track; + + several heard

Several small to Sulphur-crested medium flocks; Cacatua galerita + + cockatoo noisy; no nest sites observed

e Platycercus caledonicus Calls and sightings Green rosella + + caledonicus frequent

Small flock in forest Platycercus eximius Eastern rosella patch west of main + + study area

Small flock in forest Neophema chrysostoma Blue-winged parrot patch west of main + + study area

Cacomantis pallidus Pallid cuckoo Heard once only +

Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed cuckoo Heard several times +

i Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing kookaburra Sightings and calls + +

Locally common in Malurus cyaneus Superb fairy-wren + + small flocks

Pardalotus punctatus Spotted pardalote Calls only +

Sightings and calls Pardalotus striatus Striated pardalote + + frequent

Widespread and Acanthiza pusilla pusilla Brown thornbill + + locally common

Anthochaera paradoxa Yellow wattlebird One heard and seen + +

Noisy in western Manorina melanocephala Noisy miner + + remnant patch

Yellow-throated Several heard and e Lichenostomus flavicollis + + honeyeater seen

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 74 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Species Common name Comments Sight Scat Call Other

Several heard and Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus Crescent honeyeater + + seen

Phylidonyris New Holland Frequent on Banksia + + novaehollandiae honeyeater marginata

One observed in Acanthorhynchus Eastern spinebill Banksia marginata in + tenuirostris flower

Individuals occasional Petroica boodang Scarlet robin on fenceposts and + stumps

One perched on old Petroica phoenicea Flame robin + stump

Calls occasional; one e Melanodryas vittata Dusky robin + + sighting

Pachycephala pectoralis Golden whistler Calls only +

Colluricincla harmonica Grey shrike-thrush Calls only +

Several individuals Rhipidura albiscapa Grey fantail + + seen and heard

Black-faced cuckoo- Heard and seen in Coracina novaehollandiae + + shrike November 2013

Several small flocks Artamus cyanopterus Dusky woodswallow + + seen and heard

One seen near old Cracitus torguatus Grey butcherbird + army camp

Small flock along Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie western margin of + + main forest patch

Several seen and Corvus tasmanicus Forest raven + + heard

Individuals in i Alauda arvensis Skylark paddock to east of + main forest area

Small flock near i Carduelis carduelis European goldfinch + entrance to property

Individuals hawking Hirundo neoxena Welcome swallow for insects above + paddocks

Individuals hawking Hirundo nigricans Tree martin for insects in open + bracken-wattle areas

Several in small flocks in paddock i Sturnus vulgaris Common starling + trees and forest edges

Amphibians

1 heard in November 2013 at western Litoria raniformis Green and golden frog + fringe of shallow “dam”

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 75 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Species Common name Comments Sight Scat Call Other

Heard near shallow Litoria ewingi Brown tree frog + “dam”

Heard near shallow Crinia signifera Common froglet + “dam”

Reptiles

Widespread and Niveoscincus metallicus Metallic skink + common

Widespread and e Niveoscincus pretiosus Tasmanian tree skink + common

1 observed near Tiliqua nigrolutea Blotched bluetongue + entrance

One found under log Drysdalia coronoides White-lipped snake + near shallow “dam”

Notechis scutatus Tiger snake 3 observed +

1 observed near Austrelaps superbus Lowland copperhead + shallow dam

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 76 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX D. Images of threatened flora and threatened flora habitat

Habitat of Tricoryne elatior. LHS. grassy-heathy Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland with sedgy patches (tends to grow in and around the edges (red ellipse). RHS. Track verge along western boundary – species occurs on track edges amongst grass (red ellipses) – note also habitat of Arthropodium strictum and Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata

LHS & RHS. Tricoryne elatior – obvious when in flower as no other yellow-flowered “lilies” take this form but also detectable from the stiff green scapes

LHS & RHS. Typical habitat of Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 77 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius. LHS. Bearded petals typical of the genus. RHS. Pubescent (softy- hairy) covering on leaves and branchlets that distinguish it from the widespread and common var. virgatus

LHS. Arthropodium strictum – most easily identified when in flower but old flowerheads are also distinctive cf. other Arthropodium species because of the numbers of flowers at each node. RHS. Cynoglossum australe showing the hooked bristles on the seeds and blue flowers

LHS. Dense grassy habitat of Cynoglossum australe along eastren fenceline. RHS. Cynoglossum australe growing amongst dense grass (circled)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 78 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS. Stackhousia subterranea growing amongst dense grass. RHS. Flagged off patch of Stackhousia subterranea

LHS. Stackhousia subterranea. RHS. Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia

LHS. Habitat of Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia near entrance to study area. RHS. Habitat of Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata on eastern slopes

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 79 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS & RHS. Shallow “dam” that supports populations of Siloxerus multiflorus, Aphelia gracilis, Aphelia pumilio, Myriophyllum integrifolium and Stylidium despectum around its margins

LHS. Myriophyllum intergrifolium. RHS. Aphelia gracilis – neither get any bigger than this

Stylidium despectum – another tiny annual herb (circled)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 80 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS & RHS. Old army camp site, habitat of Siloxerus multiflorus, Aphelia pumilio and Arthropdium strictum

LHS. Habitat of Aphelia pumilio and Siloxerus multiflorus on old grassy tracks. RHS. Aphelia pumilio (circled)

LHS. Habitat of Aphelia pumilo, Arthropodium strictum, Tricoryne elatior and Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata – track verges and centres. RHS. Sward of Siloxerus multiflorus and Aphelia pumilio at old army camp

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 81 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

LHS. & RHS. Siloxerus multiflorus (circled)

LHS & RHS. Habitat of Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata in western remnant patch – the species occurs between the forest and the planted barley crop to the north along the frequently mown and grazed “track”

LHS. Habitat of Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata near western boundary of main forest patch. RHS. Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata showing the typical falcate (sickle-shaped) awns (“spears”)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 82 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX E. Images of threatened fauna and threatened fauna habitat

Views of the shallow “dam” in November 2013 – the green and golden frog (Litoria raniformis) was heard from the western fringe (circled)

The same “dam” as in images above but in March 2014 when a period of wearm weather had allowed the water to completely evaporate

Fragments of dried devil scats (circled) near dam (southeast approach – circled in image above)

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 83 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX F. Images of declared weeds

LHS. Ulex europaeus (gorse) on eastern edge of main gravel track south of the old army camp RHS. Ulex europaeus (gorse) along forest-pasture fenceline at east of study area

LHS. Ulex europaeus (gorse) in far southwest of study area near rail line RHS. Ulex europaeus (gorse) at edge of old concrete foundation in east of study area

LHS. Pasture at east of study area, with scattered Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle) throughout (diffoicult to see in image due to shadows) RHS. Carduus pycnocephalus (slender thistle) at edge of old concrete foundation in east of study area

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 84 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

APPENDIX G. DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX H. DSEWPaC’s Protected Matters report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

APPENDIX I. Forest Practices Authority’s Fauna Values Database report for study area

Appended as pdf file.

Ecological Assessment, “Fingal Rail” Proposed Bauxite Mine 85